Larry,  

I think the scenario Chris described is just one of all the possible
scenarios we face. Especially because your clearing house and list of payers
tends to be fairly static (in the scheme of things).  So I guess I'd
approach it a little bit differently.  I'd ask, what problem are you trying
to solve? Communications with business associates? with payers? with
providers? remote support from IT vendors? remote access for employees?
patient access to their own information? 

Let's look at the situation where we are granting remote access through the
web to community physicians (for treatment & payment purposes)in an
Extranet/VPN scenario.  Community providers also tend to be fairly static
(except when you throw in the mix of medical students and residents on
clinical rotations). So, how many accounts will you have and is it feasible
to manage things like issuing tokens? Also, do you want to provide access
from their offices only, or do you want to make it available from their
homes, or even when travelling? In such a scenario you face the challenge of
whether to require digital certificates and whether those are going to live
in someone's hard-drive or in a token that the user can carry along so that
access is an option from whatever the location. If it's feasible, I'd
recommend the latter.

The same would apply to patients which for the most part are not a static
population at all. But the numbers are far greater than the numbers of
providers, employers, contractors and other BA's combined. The challenge
then is to decide whether you have the resources to deploy and manage dual
factor authentication (say a token + pin) that the patient can utilize w/o
having to retrofit clients with readers etc (when you do that, you're
basically restricting access to a pre-set range of remote locations anyway,
and making it hard for those folks that travel, etc).  Here the costs would
be huge and I think this is a scenario where strong PW would suffice. Since
you would restrict access to their own information, if the patient is not
careful with his/her PW, then I would think it's his/her problem.

For remote vendor access you may want to set up a call-back procedure so you
don't have to deploy tokens (plus you know for sure when a vendor is coming
into your network because you don't activate their domain accounts until you
verify the request via phone or a digitally signed email).  This obviously
assumes the number of IT vendors is relatively small and requires the
ability to respond quickly to such requests and assumes a 24/7 operation.

Now, I'd keep in mind the spirit of the regs when evaluating each problem to
be solved. HIPAA makes it a point to recommend balancing risks versus costs.
And if your risks are relatively low and you don't have many resources, then
a strong PW policy may be the answer for your organization.

Anyway, I've rambled on for a while, but I guess the bottom line is that
there is not a single answer and the best method will depend on a case by
case basis. I' would assume that most of us are exploring different
approaches to solve different problems.

a.
Albert Oriol, CHE, CISSP
Privacy & Data Security Officer
The Children's Hospital
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(303) 861 6094


"All things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler"
-- Albert Einstein



-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Riley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 7:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Web authentication for HIPAA


Larry,
When HIPAA protected data is accessed via a web server the custodian of the
data must
protect against un-authorized access. This problem has a different twist
than the way you
would normally think about it.  Typically, HIPAA data would not be pulled
from a website
(in that case you would have to guarantee the identity of the receiving
party) but rather
pushed to the site in the case of a provider sending a claim request to a
clearing house.
In this example, it is the provider who is responsible to guarantee the
identity of the
clearing house.

When a clearing house website uses SSL and a Certification Authority (CA), a
number of
things happen.  The providers web browser gets an encrypted packet from the
clearing house
containing a guarantee from the CA that the clearing house is who they claim
to be.  It is
our opinion that the CA guarantee combined with a proper business partner
agreement is
sufficient to transfer the data.

The other side of this coin are the issues surrounding the receiver of the
data.  The
clearing house needs to be reasonably sure that the data they receive is
from a known
source otherwise the quality of their service could be impacted.
Unfortunately, SSL does
nothing to address this issue and that is where the discussion of passwords
versus digital
certificates comes into play.  The problem with passwords (even strong
passwords), is that
users tend to do thinks like write them on sticky notes and paste them on
their screens.
Because the issuer of the password (clearing house) can not control how the
password is
used,  it does not really provide a strong guarantee that the user is who
they claim they
are.  They are however better than no authentication at all.  Digital
Certificates, on the
other hand will provide a guarantee to the receiver that the sender is who
they claim to
be.  This is really an issue receiver of the data has to resolve.  Although
Digital
Certificates are not required by HIPAA, the receiver has to decide how this
may impact
their quality of service.

Hope this helps,
Chris Riley, CISSP
Information Tool Designers Inc.
http://aegis.info-tools.com/

"Hooser, Larry" wrote:

> HIPAA does not require digital certificates for web authentication.  There
> is a reason for that related to cost, overhead, customer impact, lack of
> standardization, and others.  Some also are not convinced that they add a
> great deal of value to security.  Ultimately, if the user shares the pin
> number, you have the same security breach as sharing the username and
> password.  There are some physical access improvements, but the question
is
> are they substantial.
>
> I believe that strong, rules-based usernames and passwords, along with
> effective identification and issuance processes, does provide "reasonable
> care" and effective web authentication.  I also agree that digital
> certificates may have their place in some cases.
>
> Is there anyone out there planning to use strong, rules-based
> usernames/passwords for HIPAA web authentication - or are all of you
leaning
> toward PKI as the ONLY authentication method?  Where portability, cost,
> customer impact, performance, and other consideration are of concern in
> using digital certificates, can usernames/passwords be a viable, trusted
> alternative?
>
> Feedback appreciated.
>
> Larry D. Hooser
> DSHS/MAA WMS Security Manager/HIPAA Consultant
> 617 8th Ave SE, Bldg 1 - 4th Floor
> Olympia, WA 98504-5511
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone:  360.725.1236
>
> **********************************************************************
> To be removed from this list, go to:
http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=privacy
> and enter your email address.

--




**********************************************************************
To be removed from this list, go to:
http://snip.wedi.org/unsubscribe.cfm?list=privacy
and enter your email address.


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message is legally
privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any release,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the author immediately by replying to this message and delete the original
message. 
Thank you.




**********************************************************************
To be removed from this list, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note that it may take up to 72 hours to process your request.

Reply via email to