Breaches without details (updated)
When HHS’s breach tool reveals a breach I was not already aware of, I try to investigate or find media sources. Sometimes, despite my efforts, I can find nothing online to clarify a breach report. In some cases, I write to the organizations, who may – or may not – answer. Here are some breaches reported to HHS this year where we have no additional details. Each entry gives the name of the covered entity, the state, the number of patients reportedly affected, the date of the incident, and what the breach involved.
If you have more info on any of these, please let me know or post a link.
Amerigroup Community Care of New Mexico, Inc,NM,,”1,537″, 7/15/2011,Theft,Paper
Stone Oak Urgent Care & Family Practice,TX,,”3,079″, 10/23/2011,Theft/Loss,Computer (see this post)
Conway Regional Medical Center,AR,,”1,472″, 8/24/2011,Loss,Other (CDs)
UCLA Health System,CA,,”2,761″, 9/7/2011,Theft,Other Portable Electronic Device (see update below)
Julie A. Kennedy, D.M.D., P.A.,FL,,”2,900″, 9/30/2011,Theft,Network Server
Knox Community Hospital,OH,, “500”, 10/1/2010,Improper Disposal,Other (X-ray film)
Centro de Ortodancia ,PR,,”2,000″, 5/6/2010,Unauthorized Access/Disclosure,Paper
InStep Foot Clinic, P.A.,MN,,”2,600″, 8/28/2011,Theft,”Laptop, Electronic Medical Record”
Gail Gillespie and Associates, LLC,TX,,”2,334″,6/25/2011,Theft,”Laptop, Computer, Network Server”
Capron Rescue Squad District,IL,, “815”, 2/5/2011,Unauthorized Access/Disclosure,Laptop
Health Care Service Corporation,IL,, “501”, 6/28/2011,Theft,Paper
Silverpop Systems, Inc. Health and Welfare Plan,GA,, “884”, 4/15/2011,Theft,Laptop
Gene S. J. Liaw, MD. PS,WA,,”1,105″, 4/4/2011, Loss,Other Portable Electronic Device
Update: Found an explanation for the UCLA breach discussed in the Comments section. Joseph Conn mentioned the discrepancy in an article:
A Nov. 4 public notice on a breach reported by the UCLA Health System states that “some personal information on 16,288 patients” was stolen, but the wall of shame lists the “individuals affected” in the UCLA incident as 2,761.
UCLA spokeswoman Dale Tate said in an e-mail that the nearly six-times-larger number in its notice “represents the number of individuals who had some information on the hard drive,” while the 2,761 figure sent to the OCR “represents the number of people that met the specific criteria” under the federal breach notification rule.
Under the federal rule, Tate says, “the information for these individuals could possibly cause more than a minimal amount of financial, reputational or other harm.” Information on the rest of the individuals, Tate said, did not meet the criteria.
So it was the same incident.
Anonymous - December 9, 2011
Thanks for keeping such good track of this stuff! It would be nice to get some anonymous sources to clarify these… I have no idea how to do that or if it’s wise. Maybe we need more metadata required for the wall of shame? What, at a minimum, would be good to add to the list above?