The origin of HIPAA
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of the year 1996 (HIPAA) was a crucial step taken by the government of the United States regarding the security of specific health information. In the Act, the secretary of the nation’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had the primary task of formulation rules and regulations that could be applied in the protection of given health reports. As such, under the Act, there are two main elements catered for addressed concerning the protection of the particular health information. Under the Act, there is the privacy rule primarily explains the various national regulations established to safeguard protected health reports.
On the contrary, the security rule helps in providing guidelines that concern information stored or transferred through the various electronic systems. Additionally, the cases of particular health organizations exposing health information of specific people prompted the formation and implementation of the rule. Subsequently, the government put in place the different regulations that facilities ought to follow in a bid to promote the successful adherence to the Act’s specifications. Arguably, each health organization is required by the law to ensure the availability of secure information storage systems for the protection of essential health facts of patients (Troyansky, 2015). Therefore, the origin of HIPAA was because of the need for safeguarding the security and privacy of individuals that seek medical attention from several facilities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Goals of HIPAA
During the formation and implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the government had multiple targets that it aimed to achieve in the end. As such, the United States health department primarily aimed at ensuring the confidentiality, availability and integrity of any information storage system adopted by a facility. In essence, when any information regarding the care plan and other vital information is stored or transmitted electronically, both the healthcare provider and the patient are ensured of their safety. Such is enabled by the confidentiality promoted security system adopted by the health facility in question. Additionally, the Act had the goal of identifying and protecting health information against any potential threat that affects the integrity and security of the particular health information.
Here, the government requires that facilities in the country use information protection systems that are not prone to access by any individual. Notably, before the use of any security system by a facility, the exposure to threats usually is the primary task of the country’s health department. Moreover, HIPAA aimed at protecting health information from disclosure and use without permission from the relevant offices. In some cases, individuals would use health information in the facility without seeking authorization which affected the integrity of the storage systems used (Williams, 2016). Therefore, with the implementation of the Act, the United States government effectively ensured the integrity, confidentiality and security of health information within healthy organizations in the United States.
Impact and cost of HIPAA on organizations
The implementation of HIPAA had many implications for the operations and management of health records by a majority of healthcare providers across the United States. With the availability of the regulations, the various facilities primarily had to alter most of their storage systems to adhere to the standards set by the government. Additionally, since the Act benefited both the patient and the care provider, its implementation saw the efficient management of health information with the availability of the new systems. In essence, the exposure of crucial information to other people was deterred by the implementation of the regulation. Since the law required that only given people be granted access to individual health records, it promoted confidentiality hence better information protection.
Moreover, the multiple health organizations in the United States were financially affected by the implementation of the new rule. Due to the requirement of the law that both private and public facilities implement the changes, they incurred financial losses. As such, the complexity of the adopted health information protection system resulted in facilities using substantial financial resources. Subsequently, due to the formulation and development of the Act, facilities could effectively detect possible threats to health information stored in the systems. With the availability of the systems, health organizations could efficiently realize any entry by an intruder due to the digitalization factor (Peltier, 2016). Arguably, the implementation of HIPAA resulted in the securement of active and robust information storage systems across health organizations in the United States.
Problems with the implementation of HIPAA
Despite the confidentiality and security enabled by the application of HIPAA, its implementation was met by various challenges experienced by the facilities across the country. As such, since the country’s health department wanted the better protection of health information, each facility had to encounter the issue of implementation cost. Due to the complexity of the integrity of the system, facilities had to incur both purchasing and implementation cost. Additionally, the point of complexity was another problem associated with the formulation and development of HIPAA across a majority of health organizations. Since the system was complicated, the facilities required individuals with such skills that could support its useful survival. As a result, both private and public health providers had to seek for the training of their workers. Notably, facilities across the country had to secure people that could help the available workforce to adjust to the new regulations (Williams, 2016). Therefore, during the initial days of HIPAA implementation, facilities feared its failure due to the cost that was incurred for its success.
Co-existence of HIPAA with other systems
Consequently, the formulation and development of HIPAA primarily intended to protect the various important issues regarding the health records of individuals in the country. As such, the specifications of the law had to support the existing regulations concerning the management and transmission of health information. In the United States, the health regulations required the treatment of patients’ health information with a lot of confidentiality. When a medical care provider discloses health records to other people without their consent, the individual is held liable by the law of the country. Additionally, the Medicaid regulation requires that no one expose the health plans of a person since it is a breach of the rule (Troyansky, 2015). Most importantly, HIPAA also opposes the disclosure of health information relating to the health records of patients in a facility.
The effectiveness of HIPAA in information protection
In essence, the implementation of HIPAA has positively affected the state of operations across various medical facilities across the United States. With the availability of the law, medical facilities have found it easy to safeguard vital information from exposure to unwanted persons. For example, according to HIPAA privacy, with the help of the health department in the United States, facilities have sufficiently protected health records from any access by unauthorized persons. The security nature of the adopted system automatically detects any threat hence its effectiveness in information storage (Peltier, 2016). Additionally, the secure transmission of any health information was enabled by the enactment of HIPAA. As such, individuals in facilities cannot tamper with health records due to the lack of access thus the effectiveness of HIPAA across the United States.
References
Peltier, T. R. (2016). Information Security Policies, Procedures, and Standards: guidelines for effective information security management . Auerbach Publications.
Troyansky, L. (2015). U.S. Patent No. 9,130,986 . Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Williams, B. L. (2016). Information Security Policy Development for Compliance: ISO/IEC 27001, NIST SP 800-53, HIPAA Standard, PCI DSS V2. 0, and AUP V5. 0 . Auerbach Publications.
