Ransomware Strucks Princeton Community Hospital in West Virginia

Princeton Community Hospital in West Virginia is attempting to resolve a ransomware attack through a total rebuild of its computer network.

The reconstruction of its networks is a precaution to stop potential reinfection, and includes replacing almost 1,200 hard drives, Rose Morgan, vice president of patient care services, told MetroNews, the local newspaper.

A message on computers at the facility when they were turned on the morning of June 27 read: “If you see this text, then your files are no longer accessible because they have been encrypted,” MetroNews reported.

The rebuild started after IT staff evaluated that a ransom couldn’t be paid for reasons that were not specified, in accordance with the Wall Street Journal. The degree to which a ransom payment was considered is unclear, and the Princeton Community hospital is declining further comment.

Executives say they believe that backup records will restore patient files. There is no indication that data has been removed from the facility.

Workers were capable to get some patient data from four computers, like allergies, medications and medical history, but the hospital’s electronic health records (EHRs) system currently isn’t accessible, and the hospital has reverted to paper documentation. Complete restoration could take a week.

Workers in several departments can’t use their computers so they are ferrying physician orders and other information among hospital departments as the pneumatic tube system is not working, Morgan told the Wall Street Journal.

 

Cyberattacks, Ransomware, and Hacking in the Health Care Agency: Lessons from a Letter to the FBI

The last various weeks have brought a host of alarming revelations relating to the vulnerability of few of the most confidential data that corporations and legal entities maintain on their servers. Most prominently, the story of the so-called “Panama Papers” sustains to pursue substantial media attention, as the theft of approximately 2.6 terabytes of data from the Panamaian law firm Mossack Fonseca, and its disclosure to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, has already caused the resignation of one international leader and threaten the fates of several more. Perhaps less provocative, but no less important, is a recent Wall Street Journal article reporting that hackers illegally accessed the computer networks at some of the most respected and prestigious law firms in the USA, apparently for the purpose of stealing confidential information that in turn can facilitate insider trading.

It should not be shocking that entities in the legal industry face these sorts of attacks, offered the significance of the information they maintain. Somewhat less clear, though, is the extent to which entities in the health care field also confront a demonstrated risk of data theft at the hands of hackers seeking financial gain. In fact, although medical information about celebrity sufferers may be enticing to hackers, the information that hospitals maintain is typically not the sort that can generate newspaper headlines or lead to profitable insider trading. Yet, whether due to a desire on the part of hackers to steal data like social security numbers or Medicare provider credentials, or to extort a ransom by locking health care contributors out of critical patient information, the threat is still very real. In fact, on the day of April 8, 2016,Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey that rightfully brings heightened attention to the problem of data integrity and electronic theft in the health care industry.

2 ideas on healthcare, 1 good and the other not so much

The Republican debate on the day of Feb. 25 had front-runner Donald Trump, and to a lesser extent Sens.Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Texas), presenting what merely can be characterized as a silly concept for healthcare reform. In contrast, a recent Wall Street Journal article, "Companies make New Alliance to Target Health-Care Costs" presented a sensible proposal.

Let's discuss the silly concept first. Trump spent much time waving his hands and drawing what appeared to be lines in the air (I did notice that his hair didn't move), which purportedly supported his concept that there would be great competition — if not magnificent competition — if merely companies could sell healthcare insurance across state lines. This has been a staple of Republican attacks against ObamaCare for years.

Presently, every state in the US needs some level of scrutiny before permitting any insurance company (healthcare, property and casualty, life insurance, etc.) to sell insurance within its borders. States need to make certain that the companies selling insurance to their citizens have, in fact, the economic resources and are managed suitably to be in a position to pay claims submitted by their citizens.

Now let's move on to the good concept. The Wall Street Journal reported, as noted above, that a various large companies (among them American Express, Macy's and Verizon) intend to make an alliance that will use their data and market power in an effort to hold down the cost of healthcare.

Senate Bill to Put Physicians & Medicare Billing Data Online

April 9, 2011 — How much individual physicians receive from Medicare for treating seniors on a service-by-service basis — level-4 office visits, vaccinations, chest x-rays — would be posted online for all to see under a bill introduced April 7 by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

The 2 senators contend that public disclosure of billing information would help citizens and consumer watchdog groups spot Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse — and also deter clinicians from engaging in it.

"I believe transparency in the healthcare system leads to greater accountability," Sen. Grassley said on the Senate floor. "I’ve often quoted Justice Brandeis, who said, 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant.'" Accordingly, he and Wyden titled their legislation the Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability Act.

The American Medical Association (AMA) counters that physicians deserve privacy when it comes to Medicare billing. Furthermore, it argues, government entities charged with combating Medicare fraud, such as the Department of Justice and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, already have access to the data. The plan to post a physician’s National Provider Identifier number along with the billing information could "put physicians at significant risk of identity theft," said J. James Rohack, MD, the AMA's immediate past president.

The proposed government Web site would contain Medicare billing data for all providers and suppliers, not just physicians. The Senate legislation requires it to be searchable, including on the basis of individual items and services. The public could access the site free of charge.

The legislation comes in the wake of a series of stories published last year by the Wall Street Journal based on an analysis of a limited amount of Medicare billing data. The stories spotlighted a number of physicians who received more than a $1 million a year from Medicare by performing an unusually high number of diagnostic tests and surgeries for seniors.

Sen. Grassley acknowledges that sheer volume for a particular service does not necessarily mean a physician is engaged in shady business. Rather, he or she may be a leader in that field, attracting more patients as a result. His legislation requires the billing-data Web site to state upfront that the information does not reflect on the quality of the service or the clinician who provides it.

The controversy over public disclosure of Medicare billing information goes back to the late 1970s, when the old Department of Health, Education, and Welfare sought to publish a list of all clinicians who treated Medicare patients and what they earned from it. The Florida Medical Association and the AMA asked a federal district court in Florida to issue an injunction blocking publication of the list, and the court obliged in 1979.

Dow Jones, the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, filed suit in that same federal court in January and asked it to lift the injunction. The case is pending.