On September 5, 2018, the new Belgian Data Protection Act implementing the GDPR (the Belgian Act) was published and entered into force. Despite the GDPR being an EU regulation that directly applies to all EU Member States, several provisions of the GDPR explicitly allow, and even require, Member States to enact legislation which implements the law. Member States were expected to have this legislation in place by May 25, 2018, but the majority of Member States (including Belgium) did not meet the deadline. Since December 2017, however, Belgium has had in place a law implementing many of the more procedural provisions of the GDPR, namely the Act on the Establishment of the Supervisory Authority (the SA Act). The SA Act lays down the structure, powers and competence of the new Belgian Supervisory Authority, and also includes rules of procedure applicable to administrative proceedings before the Authority. (more…)
On 21 August 2018, the Dutch Supervisor Authority announced that it had conducted an investigation into the designation of a Data Protection Officer (DPO) under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by 91 hospitals and 33 healthcare insurers in the Netherlands. Two hospitals had not yet communicated the contact details of their DPO to the Dutch Supervisor Authority, and were given four weeks to designate a DPO. In addition, the Supervisor Authority found that 25% of the hospitals and healthcare insurers whose practices were reviewed did not properly publish their DPO’s contact details on their website. They will also be expected to implement the necessary compliance measures. (more…)
*This article first appeared in the July 2018 issue of Digital Health Legal
Massive data breaches. Threats to medical devices. The Internet of Persons. Healthcare entities are all too familiar with the rising cyber threat. But they are also familiar with the complex array of laws and regulations in the United States that attempt to address the threat and the potentially significant compliance costs and risks caused by that complexity. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s recent and long-awaited decision in LabMD v. Federal Trade Commission, which trimmed the sails of one of the primary regulators of the healthcare information security landscape, may thus appear to some, at first blush, to be a necessary corrective. Yet closer inspection shows that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision raises more questions than it answers – and that its true implications will only become clear once we see how federal regulators, the courts, and perhaps Congress respond.
In a recent speech outlining the Trump Administration’s healthcare regulatory reform efforts, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar announced that the Administration will soon begin considering changes to federal health privacy regulations. (more…)
Whether you are marking today with a glass of champagne, a shot of whiskey, or a hot cup of tea, today marks a significant day for privacy professionals world-wide.
Here’s to all of the privacy professionals who have put in so many hours to prepare for the GDPR, fully effective as of Friday May 25, 2018 at midnight in Brussels; that is 6 PM eastern on Thursday, May 24th for toasting purposes.
For business executives, policymakers, and consumers who have become aware of the GDPR in recent weeks and are interested in learning more, visit our GDPR resource page here.
On October 26, 2017, the U.S. Department of Treasury released a 176-page Report examining the current regulatory framework for asset management and insurance industries. The Report, titled A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities: Asset Management and Insurance, identifies laws and regulations that are inconsistent with the Trump Administration’s Core Principles for financial regulation as set forth in Executive Order 13772 (Feb. 3, 2017), and makes recommendations to ensure alignment. For data privacy and security, the Report commented on the Insurance Data Security Model Law (the “Model Law”) adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (the “NAIC”) on October 24, 2017 (for more information on the development of the Model Law, see our prior coverage). The Model Law attempts to set a baseline for cybersecurity, although it depends on legislative action on the state level. (more…)
On October 3, 2017, the Article 29 Working Party (“WP29”) adopted draft guidelines regarding notification of personal data breaches under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) which will require breach notification within 72 hours of awareness of a breach. (“Draft Guidelines”) (The Draft Guidelines appear to have been released for public comment during the week of 16th October). The deadline for comment is November 24, 2017. The Draft Guidelines are available here. The WP29 is a collective of EU data privacy supervisory authorities (“DPAs”). (more…)
Big Data has been a hot topic of discussion in recent years. This was especially the case in Brussels, where the fiercely debated EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was adopted in 2016. A major concern for all of us is personal privacy. Less discussed is the use of Big Data for social good.
A traditional sectoral approach to harnessing the potential of Big Data for social good is insufficient. This is the case in terms of organisations from different sectors partnering to develop new technologies. It also means that legislation and policies on Big Data must be forward thinking and facilitate cross-sectoral co-operation. (more…)
On May 24, 2017, the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) issued its  Circular No. 63 (the Circular), setting out penalties for clinical trial data integrity violations, including intentional data falsification, incomplete and incompliant data and other data defects. The highlights are: (more…)
On Thursday, August 4, 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that Advocate Health Care Center (Advocate Health) agreed to pay $5.55 million to settle multiple violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). This is the largest HIPAA settlement to date against a single entity, and according to OCR, is due to the severity of the HIPAA violations and the length of time that those violations were allowed to persist. OCR alleged that in some instances, the purported violations date back to the effective date of the HIPAA Security Rule.