Login  |  Register  |  Contact

Security Requirements for Electronic Medical Records

Although security is my chosen profession, I’ve been working in and around the healthcare industry for literally my entire life. My mother was (is) a nurse and I grew up in and around hospitals. I later became an EMT, then paramedic, and still work in emergency services on the side. Heck, even my wife works in a hospital, and one of my first security gigs was analyzing a medical benefits system, while another was as a contract CTO for an early stage startup in electronic medical records/transcription.

image

The value of moving to consistent electronic medical records is nearly incalculable. You would probably be shocked if you saw how we perform medical studies and analyze real-world medical treatments and outcomes. It’s so bass-ackwards, considering all the tech tools available today, that the only excuse is insanity or hubris. I mean there are approved drugs used in Advanced Cardiac Life Support where the medical benefits aren’t even close to proven. Sometimes it’s almost as much guesswork as trying to come up with a security ROI. There’s literally a category of drugs that’s pretty much, “well, as long as they are really dead this probably won’t hurt, but it probably won’t help either”.

With good electronic medical records, accessible on a national scale, we’ll gain an incredible ability to analyze symptoms, illnesses, treatments, and outcomes on a massive scale. It’s called evidence-based medicine, and despite what a certain political party is claiming, it has nothing to do with the government telling doctors what to do. Unless said doctors are idiots who prefer not to make decisions based on science, not that your doctor would ever do that.

The problem is while most of us personally don’t have any interest in the x-rays of whatever object happened to embed itself in your posterior when you slipped and fell on it in the bathroom, odds are someone wouldn’t mind uploading it… somewhere. Never mind insurance companies, potential employers, or that hot chick in the bar you’ve convinced those are just “love bumps”, and you were born with them.

Securing electronic medical records is a nasty problem for a few reasons:

  • They need to be accessible by any authorized medical provider in a clinical setting… quickly and easily. Even when you aren’t able to manually authorize that particular provider (like me when I roll up in an ambulance).
  • To be useful on a personal level, they need to be complete, portable, and standardized.
  • To be useful on a national level, they need to be complete, standardized, and accessible, yet anonymized.

While delving into specific technologies is beyond the scope of this post, there are specific security requirements we need to include in records systems to protect patient privacy, while enabling all the advantages of moving off paper. Keep in mind these recommendations are specific to electronic medical records systems (EMR) (also called CPR for Computerized Patient Records) – not every piece of IT that touches a record, but doesn’t have access to the main patient record.

  1. Secure Authentication: You might call this one a no-brainer, but despite HIPAA we still see rampant reuse of credentials, and weak credentials, in many different medical settings. This is often for legitimate reasons, since many EMR systems are programmed like crap and are hard to use in clinical settings. That said, we have options that work, and any time a patient record is viewed (as opposed to adding info like test results or images) we need stronger authentication tied to a specific, vetted individual.
  2. Secure Storage: We’re tired of losing healthcare records on lost hard drives or via hacking compromises of the server. Make it stop. Please. (Read all our other data security posts for some ideas).
  3. Robust Logging and Activity Monitoring: When records are accessed, a full record of who did what, and when, needs to be recorded. Some systems on the market do this, but not all of them. Also, these monitoring controls are easily bypassed by direct database access, which is rampant in the healthcare industry. These guys run massive amounts of shitty applications and rely heavily on vendor support, with big contracts and direct database access. That might be okay for certain systems, but not for the EMR.
  4. Anomaly Detection: Unusual records access shouldn’t just be recorded, but must generate a security alert (which is generally a manual review process today). An example alert might be when someone in radiology views a record, but no radiological order was recorded, or that individual wasn’t assigned to the case.
  5. Secure Exchange: I doubt our records will reside on a magical RFID implanted in our chests (since arms are easy to lose, in my experience) so we always have them with us. They will reside in a series of systems, which hopefully don’t involve Google. Our healthcare providers will exchange this information, and it’s possible no complete master record will exist unless some additional service is set up. That’s okay, since we’ll have collections of fairly complete records, with the closest thing to a master record likely (and somewhat unfortunately) managed by our insurance company. While we have some consistent formats for exchanging this data (HL7), there isn’t any secure exchange mechanism. We’ll need some form of encryption/DRM… preferably a national/industry standard.
  6. De-Identification: Once we go to collect national records (or use the data for other kinds of evidence-based studies) it needs to be de-identified. This isn’t just masking a name and SSN, since other information could easily enable inference attacks. But at a certain point, we may de-identify data so much that it blocks inference attacks, but ruins the value of the data. It’s a tough balance, which may result in tiers of data, depending on the situation.

In terms of direct advice to those of you in healthcare, when evaluating an EMR system I recommend you focus on evaluating the authentication, secure storage, logging/monitoring, and anomaly detection/alerting first. Secure exchange and de-identification come into play when you start looking at sharing information.

—Rich

No Related Posts
Previous entry: Securing Cloud Data with Virtual Private Storage | | Next entry: Using a Mac? Turn Off Java in Your Browser

Comments:

If you like to leave comments, and aren't a spammer, register for the site and email us at info@securosis.com and we'll turn off moderation for your account.

By -ds-  on  05/19  at  06:45 PM

>>
there are approved drugs used in Advanced Cardiac Life Support where the medical benefits aren’t even close to proven.
<<

I usually can be found muttering in corners that Infosec needs to stop wanting to be an art and become a science, but based on the above, maybe the two aren’t different after all :->

By Jim Hietala  on  05/19  at  07:59 PM

Good suggestions. The other industry movement that really will amplify the need for healthcare organizations to get their security right is regional/national healthcare networks. A big portion of the healthcare IT $ in the Recovery Act are going towards establishing these networks, where the security of EPHI will only be as good as the weakest accessing node. Establishing adequate standards for partners in these networks will be pretty key. And, also thanks to changes that were started as a part of the Recovery Act, healthcare organizations are now being required to actually assess 3rd party risk for business associates, versus just getting them to sign a business associate agreement. Presumably this would be anyone in a RHIO/RHIN.

Jim

By Rob Lewis  on  05/21  at  07:18 AM

“any time a patient record is viewed…we need stronger authentication tied to a specific, vetted individual”

Why wouldn’t one call this “authorization”? In the health care setting, the individual has likely been authenticated into the network or to the system.

In Ontario there is a “lockbox” privacy requirement where the patient can designate that certain personel “can not” access there personal health record and ask the provider to prove that that was upheld. It has proven to be very difficult to do, but it becomes a matter of removing authorization for those individuals if you look at the problem from this perspective.

By Rich  on  05/21  at  10:16 AM

Rob,

It’s actually the authentication that’s usually the problem is these environments, not the authorization. I agree completely on authorization for people sitting in an office, but all the clinical providers rely on shared systems, sometimes tied to medical equipment or patient location. They often don’t have time to deal with usernames and passwords the same way we do, so there’s big abuse.

One example of a solution is proximity cards.

Name:

Email:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?