本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

hipaa-risk-analysis

Conducts HIPAA risk analysis per 45 CFR §164.308(a)(1) following OCR guidance methodology. Covers threat identification, vulnerability assessment, likelihood and impact determination, risk scoring, and mitigation planning for electronic protected health information. Keywords: HIPAA risk analysis, OCR guidance, threat assessment, vulnerability, risk management, ePHI.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(5)

  • SKILL.md16.0 KB
  • assets/template.md2.9 KB
  • references/standards.md2.4 KB
  • references/workflows.md6.0 KB
  • scripts/process.py15.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

HIPAA Risk Analysis — 45 CFR §164.308(a)(1)

Overview

The HIPAA Security Rule requires covered entities and business associates to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI held by the organization. Risk analysis under §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A) is the foundational requirement of the Security Rule — it drives all subsequent safeguard decisions. OCR has identified failure to conduct a comprehensive, enterprise-wide risk analysis as the most common finding in breach investigations and compliance reviews. The risk analysis must be ongoing, not a one-time event, and must be updated whenever significant changes occur in the environment or in response to security incidents.

Legal Foundation

Regulatory Text

45 CFR §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A) — Risk Analysis (Required):

"Conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information held by the covered entity or business associate."

45 CFR §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B) — Risk Management (Required):

"Implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level to comply with §164.306(a)."

OCR Guidance Documents

OCR published "Guidance on Risk Analysis Requirements under the HIPAA Security Rule" (July 14, 2010) establishing nine essential elements that an adequate risk analysis must address. This guidance, while not binding regulation, represents OCR's enforcement expectations and has been consistently applied in settlement agreements and corrective action plans.

OCR Nine Essential Elements

Element 1: Scope of the Analysis

The risk analysis must encompass all ePHI that the organization creates, receives, maintains, or transmits, in every form and location:

Asclepius Health Network Scope Inventory:

ePHI LocationSystem/MediumData CategoriesVolume
Electronic Health Record (Epic)Production servers, disaster recovery siteComplete clinical records, demographics, insurance4.2 million patient records
Practice Management SystemCloud-hosted (Azure US East)Scheduling, billing, referrals4.2 million patients
Laboratory Information SystemOn-premises serversLab orders, results, specimen tracking12 million results annually
Radiology PACSOn-premises SAN storageDiagnostic images, reports850 TB imaging data
Email System (Exchange Online)Microsoft 365 tenantIncidental ePHI in clinical communicationsEstimated 15,000 messages/day containing ePHI
Mobile Devices3,200 organization-owned tablets, 800 BYOD smartphonesClinical reference, secure messaging, patient photosVariable
Medical Devices1,400 networked devices (infusion pumps, monitors, ventilators)Real-time patient data, device logsContinuous streaming
Paper-to-digital ConversionScanning workstations, OCR serversScanned historical records, faxed referrals2,000 pages/day
Business Associate Systems47 BA relationships with ePHI accessVaries by BA (billing, transcription, cloud hosting, analytics)Varies
Backup and ArchiveTape library, offsite vault, cloud archiveComplete system backups6-year retention
Health Information ExchangeRegional HIE platformADT feeds, CCD documents, lab results150,000 transactions/month

Element 2: Data Collection

Identify and document where ePHI is stored, received, maintained, or transmitted. Methods include:

  • Automated discovery: Network scanning tools identifying systems communicating health data (HL7, FHIR, DICOM traffic analysis)
  • Data flow mapping: Documenting how ePHI moves between systems, departments, and external parties
  • Workforce interviews: Structured interviews with department managers, clinical informaticists, and IT staff
  • System inventory review: Cross-referencing CMDB (Configuration Management Database) with ePHI classification tags
  • Vendor assessment questionnaire responses: BA-reported ePHI handling practices
  • Physical walkthroughs: Identifying workstations, printers, fax machines, and storage locations processing ePHI

Element 3: Identify and Document Potential Threats and Vulnerabilities

Threat Categories

Threat CategorySpecific ThreatsSource
NaturalFlood, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, wildfire, pandemicGeographic and climate risk assessment
Human — IntentionalHacking/IT incident, ransomware, phishing, insider theft, social engineering, nation-state APTFBI IC3 reports, HHS cybersecurity alerts, threat intelligence feeds
Human — UnintentionalMisdirected email/fax, lost device, improper disposal, misconfiguration, training failureIncident history, OCR breach portal patterns
EnvironmentalPower failure, HVAC failure, water damage, fire, electromagnetic interferenceFacility assessments, utility reliability data
TechnicalSoftware vulnerability, hardware failure, network outage, cryptographic weaknessCVE databases, vendor advisories, penetration test results

Vulnerability Assessment Methods

  • Penetration testing: Annual external and internal penetration test by independent third party
  • Vulnerability scanning: Weekly automated scans of all network-connected assets (Qualys, Nessus, or equivalent)
  • Configuration auditing: Quarterly review of system configurations against CIS benchmarks
  • Social engineering testing: Semi-annual phishing simulations; annual physical penetration attempts
  • Application security testing: SAST/DAST scanning of internally developed applications; third-party code review for critical systems
  • Wireless security assessment: Quarterly rogue access point scanning; annual wireless penetration test

Element 4: Assess Current Security Measures

Document existing safeguards and their effectiveness:

Asclepius Health Network Current Controls Assessment (Sample):

Control AreaImplemented MeasureEffectiveness RatingGap Identified
Access ControlRole-based access in EHR with unique user IDsEffectiveQuarterly access reviews not consistently completed for all departments
Encryption at RestAES-256 FDE on servers and endpointsEffective12 legacy medical devices running unencrypted embedded systems
Encryption in TransitTLS 1.2+ enforced on all external connectionsEffective3 internal legacy interfaces still using TLS 1.0
Audit LoggingCentralized SIEM with 6-year retentionEffectiveLog review staffing insufficient for alert volume
BackupDaily incremental, weekly full, offsite replicationEffectiveRestore testing frequency needs improvement
Physical SecurityBadge access, CCTV, visitor managementPartially EffectiveServer room access badge list includes 15 individuals who no longer require access
Anti-MalwareEDR deployed on all managed endpointsEffectiveCoverage gap on BYOD devices with MDM enrollment below 100%
Patch ManagementMonthly patch cycle, 14-day critical patch SLAPartially EffectiveMedical device patching delayed by manufacturer certification requirements

Element 5: Determine the Likelihood of Threat Occurrence

Assign likelihood ratings based on threat capability, motivation, and existing controls:

Likelihood LevelDefinitionScoring
Very HighAlmost certain to occur within the next year; active exploitation observed5
HighLikely to occur; threat source is capable and motivated; controls have known weaknesses4
MediumPossible occurrence; threat source exists and has some capability; controls are partially effective3
LowUnlikely but possible; limited threat capability or motivation; controls are generally effective2
Very LowRemote possibility; no known threat source targeting this vulnerability; strong controls in place1

Element 6: Determine the Potential Impact of Threat Occurrence

Assess the magnitude of harm if a threat exploits a vulnerability:

Impact LevelDefinitionExamplesScoring
CriticalCatastrophic harm to individuals or organizationBreach of >500K records, permanent patient harm from data integrity failure, organizational insolvency5
HighSignificant harm to many individuals or severe organizational impactBreach of 10K-500K records, extended system outage affecting patient care, OCR investigation4
MediumModerate harm to limited individuals or substantial operational disruptionBreach of 500-10K records, multi-day system unavailability, significant remediation costs3
LowLimited harm to few individuals or manageable operational impactBreach of <500 records, brief system disruption, contained incident2
NegligibleMinimal or no harmNo ePHI exposure confirmed, minor operational inconvenience1

Element 7: Determine the Level of Risk

Risk is calculated as the product of likelihood and impact:

Risk Score = Likelihood × Impact
Risk ScoreRisk LevelAction Required
20-25CriticalImmediate mitigation required; senior leadership notification; consider system suspension
12-19HighMitigation plan required within 30 days; management approval to accept risk
6-11MediumMitigation plan required within 90 days; documented risk acceptance alternative
2-5LowMonitor and address in normal operations; annual review
1MinimalAccept and document; review at next scheduled risk analysis

Asclepius Health Network Risk Register (Sample Entries):

Risk IDThreat/VulnerabilityLikelihoodImpactRisk ScoreRisk Level
R-001Ransomware attack on clinical systems4 (High)5 (Critical)20Critical
R-002Insider unauthorized access to celebrity patient records4 (High)3 (Medium)12High
R-003Unencrypted legacy medical device data exposure3 (Medium)4 (High)12High
R-004Phishing leading to credential compromise4 (High)4 (High)16High
R-005Lost/stolen unencrypted mobile device2 (Low)3 (Medium)6Medium
R-006Misdirected fax containing ePHI3 (Medium)2 (Low)6Medium
R-007Natural disaster affecting primary data center2 (Low)5 (Critical)10Medium

Element 8: Finalize Documentation

The risk analysis must be documented in sufficient detail to demonstrate:

  1. The scope covered all ePHI
  2. Threats and vulnerabilities were comprehensively identified
  3. Current security measures were evaluated
  4. Likelihood and impact were assessed using a consistent methodology
  5. Risk levels were determined
  6. The analysis was conducted by qualified personnel

Required Documentation Components:

  • Date of analysis and date range covered
  • Personnel conducting the analysis (names, qualifications)
  • Methodology description
  • Complete asset inventory with ePHI classification
  • Threat and vulnerability catalog
  • Current controls inventory
  • Risk scoring matrix and ratings
  • Risk register with all identified risks
  • Executive summary for leadership

Element 9: Periodic Review and Updates

The risk analysis is not a one-time activity. It must be updated:

  • At least annually as a scheduled comprehensive review
  • When new systems, applications, or technologies are implemented
  • When significant changes to the operating environment occur (mergers, relocations, new facilities)
  • After a security incident or breach
  • When new threats are identified (new malware families, regulatory changes, threat intelligence alerts)
  • When OCR or industry guidance identifies new risk areas

Risk Management and Mitigation Planning — §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B)

For each risk above the organization's acceptable risk threshold, develop and implement a mitigation plan:

Mitigation Plan Template (Risk R-001: Ransomware):

ElementDetail
Risk IDR-001
Risk DescriptionRansomware attack encrypting clinical systems, rendering ePHI unavailable
Current Risk Score20 (Critical)
Mitigation Measures(1) Deploy advanced EDR with behavioral ransomware detection; (2) Implement network segmentation isolating clinical systems; (3) Maintain immutable backup copies with air-gapped storage; (4) Conduct quarterly tabletop ransomware exercises; (5) Implement application whitelisting on clinical workstations
Implementation TimelineEDR: Complete; Segmentation: 60 days; Immutable backups: 90 days; Tabletop: Quarterly; Whitelisting: 120 days
Responsible PartyCISO (overall); Network Engineering (segmentation); Backup Administrator (immutable backups)
Target Risk Score8 (Medium) — likelihood reduced from 4 to 2 through layered controls
Residual Risk AcceptanceApproved by CIO and CPO on documented risk acceptance form
Review DateNext comprehensive review or 90 days post-implementation

Common OCR Findings

OCR consistently identifies the following deficiencies in risk analyses:

  1. Not enterprise-wide: Analysis limited to EHR system only, excluding email, mobile devices, medical devices, and BA systems
  2. Not updated: One-time analysis without periodic review or updates after significant changes
  3. Not thorough: Failure to identify all ePHI assets, particularly shadow IT, personal devices, and cloud services
  4. No documentation: Analysis conducted informally without written documentation
  5. No risk management follow-through: Risks identified but no mitigation plans developed or implemented
  6. Inadequate methodology: No structured approach to likelihood/impact determination; subjective risk ratings without defined criteria

Enforcement Actions for Risk Analysis Failures

Risk analysis deficiency is cited in the majority of OCR enforcement actions:

  • Anthem Inc. (2018): $16 million — failed to conduct enterprise-wide risk analysis prior to breach affecting 78.8 million
  • Premera Blue Cross (2020): $6.85 million — risk analysis failed to identify risks across the enterprise; did not assess all systems with ePHI
  • Banner Health (2023): $1.25 million — risk analysis was not accurate and thorough; did not identify all risks to ePHI
  • CHSPSC LLC (2020): $2.3 million — failed to conduct accurate risk analysis and implement risk management measures
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (2020): $650,000 — failure to conduct risk analysis of ePHI maintained by research programs
  • Metro Community Provider Network (2017): $400,000 — risk analysis not conducted to sufficient depth

Integration Points

  • hipaa-security-rule: Risk analysis drives implementation decisions for all technical, administrative, and physical safeguards
  • hipaa-breach-notify: Post-breach risk analysis updates feed into breach risk assessment under §164.402
  • hipaa-baa-management: Risk analysis must include ePHI held by or accessible to business associates
  • hipaa-privacy-rule: Privacy risk assessments complement security risk analysis for comprehensive PHI protection

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Implements 42 CFR Part 2 protections for substance use disorder patient records. Covers written consent requirements stricter than HIPAA, re-disclosure prohibition, court order procedures, qualified service organization agreements, and 2024 amendments aligning Part 2 with HIPAA. Keywords: 42 CFR Part 2, substance use disorder, SUD records, re-disclosure, consent, Part 2 amendments.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Guides assessment of third-country adequacy decisions under GDPR Article 45 for international data transfers. Covers the current EC adequacy decisions list, adequacy assessment criteria, partial adequacy handling, and monitoring of adequacy decision reviews. Keywords: adequacy decision, Article 45, third country, adequate protection, EC adequacy list.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Implements age-gating mechanisms for online services to restrict access based on user age. Covers hard gates versus soft gates, neutral age prompts, re-verification triggers, circumvention prevention, and regulatory requirements under GDPR, COPPA, UK Online Safety Act, and DSA. Keywords: age gate, age restriction, neutral prompt, children, online services, access control.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Evaluates and implements age estimation and verification technologies for online services. Covers facial age estimation, digital ID verification, self-declaration with risk assessment, AI-based age estimation, and the accuracy versus privacy tradeoff. Includes ICO guidance and euCONSENT framework. Keywords: age verification, age estimation, facial analysis, digital ID, children, online safety.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Preparing EU AI Act compliance documentation for high-risk AI systems. Covers Annex III classification, technical documentation under Art. 11, conformity assessment, risk management systems, and CE marking requirements. Keywords: EU AI Act, high-risk AI, Annex III, conformity assessment, CE marking.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Implements GDPR Art. 22 automated decision-making and AI Act Art. 14 human oversight requirements for AI systems. Covers identification of solely automated decisions, meaningful human intervention design, logic explanation mechanisms, and contestation procedures. Keywords: Art. 22, automated decision, human oversight, AI Act, profiling, contestation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

mukul975 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する