While many Republican candidates who have denied the 2020 election results won their midterm races, some newcomers who focused their campaigns on the issue were less successful.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

A sculpture of a hand holding an oil rig stands outside the headquarters of Venezuela’s national oil company.
Why Unlocking Venezuelan Oil Won’t Mean Much for US Energy Prices
Jan 21, 2026
In the wake of U.S. forces’ arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, U.S. President Donald Trump has said the U.S. is taking over Venezuelan oil production.
In addition, the U.S. has blockaded Venezuelan oil exports for a few weeks and seized tankers that reportedly escaped from the blockade.
To understand what’s happening and what it means for U.S. consumers and the American energy industry, The Conversation U.S. checked in with Amy Myers Jaffe, a research professor at New York University and senior fellow at Tufts University who studies global energy markets and the geopolitics of oil.
What is the state of Venezuela’s oil industry and how did it get to this point?
Venezuela’s oil industry has experienced profound turmoil over its history, including a steady downward spiral beginning in 1998. That’s when a worldwide economic downturn took global oil prices below $10 per barrel at the same time as the Venezuelan public’s growing interest in reasserting local control of the country’s oil industry ushered in populist President Hugo Chávez.
In April 2002, Venezuelans took to the streets to protest the appointment of Chávez loyalists to replace the top brass of the national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela. The chaos culminated in an attempted coup against Chavez, who managed to retake power in a matter of days. Petróleos de Venezuela’s workers then went out on strike, prompting Chávez to purge close to 20,000 top management and oil workers. That began a brain drain that would last for years.
In 2007, Chávez, standing in front of a banner that read “Full Oil Sovereignty, The Road to Socialism,” took over ExxonMobil’s and ConocoPhillips’ oil-producing assets in Venezuela. The companies had declined to accept new oil contracts at radically less profitable terms than they had in previous years.
After Chávez’s death in 2013, national economic chaos accelerated. By 2018, reports began to surface that roving gangs, as well as some oil workers struggling to survive, were stripping the industry of its valuable materials – computers, copper wiring, and metals and machinery – to sell on the black market.
U.S. sanctions added to the mix over the years, culminating in a drop in Venezuelan oil production to 840,000 barrels a day in 2025, down from the 3.5 million barrels a day it was able to produce in 1997.
A handful of international oil companies remained in the country throughout the turmoil, including U.S.-based Chevron, French-Indonesian firm Maurel and Prom, Spanish firm Repsol, and Italian firm ENI. But the political chaos, sanctions and technical mismanagement of the oil industry have taken a heavy toll.
Some estimates say that the country wouldn’t need a lot of investment to increase production to about 1 million barrels a day by 2027. But other analysts say that immediate investment of as much as $20 billion could only raise Venezuela’s production to 1.5 million barrels a day.
Most of the oil in Venezuela is very heavy oil and requires expensive processing to be able to be refined into usable products. The country’s leaders have claimed to have 300 billion-plus barrels of reserves.

The El Palito refinery in Puerto Cabello, Venezuela, is owned by the country’s national oil company. Jesus Vargas/picture alliance via Getty Images
What effect does Venezuela’s production have on prices that U.S. consumers pay for gasoline, natural gas, gas-fired electricity and other petroleum products?
In general terms, U.S. gasoline prices are influenced by global crude oil market levels. Sudden changes in export rates from major oil-producing countries can alter the trajectory for oil prices.
However, Venezuela’s recent export levels have been relatively small. So the immediate effect of changes in Venezuelan oil export levels is likely to be limited. Overall, the global oil market is oversupplied at the moment, keeping prices relatively low and in danger of falling further, even though China is stockpiling large oil reserves.
Venezuela did not export any natural gas. In the long run, a fuller restoration of Venezuela’s oil and gas industry could mean oil prices will have difficulty rising as high as past peaks in times of volatility and could potentially fall if oil demand begins to peak. And Royal Dutch Shell and Trinidad and Tobago National Gas Company have plans to develop Venezuela’s offshore Dragon natural gas field, adding to an expected glut of liquefied natural gas, often called LNG, in global markets in the coming years.
How much oil is coming to the U.S. now, and how would more imports of Venezuelan oil affect U.S. refiners?
The U.S. Gulf Coast refining center is known for its capability to process heavy, low-quality oil like Venezuela’s into valuable products such as gasoline and diesel. Already, refineries owned by Chevron, Valero and Phillips 66 are bringing in Venezuelan oil.
Before the U.S. seized Maduro, most of Venezuela’s exports were going to China, though about 200,000 barrels a day were coming to the United States under Chevron’s special license.

An oil tanker approaches a dock in Maracaibo, Venezuela, on Jan. 10, 2026. Margioni Bermúdez/AFP via Getty Images
Trump has said the U.S. will get between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil from Venezuela, to be used “to benefit the people” of both countries. That’s about two or three days’ worth of U.S. oil production, and between one and two months’ worth of Venezuelan production. What effects could that have for the U.S. or Venezuela?
Some 20 million to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan crude oil is currently piled up in Venezuela’s storage tanks and ships in the aftermath of the U.S. blockade. Exports needed to resume quickly before storage ran out to prevent oil production facilities from needing to shut down, which could then require lengthy and expensive restart procedures.
The United States has been a major exporter of petroleum products in recent years, reaching 7.7 million barrels a day at the end of 2025.
Processing more Venezuelan oil might help make U.S. Gulf Coast refineries a bit more profitable by making more money on their refined products exports. But since there was no shortage of products in the U.S. market, I don’t expect consumers to see much savings.
But U.S. refineries only have so much capacity to refine heavy oil like Venezuela’s. And they have long-term contracts for oil from other suppliers. So they won’t be able to handle all of those 30 million to 50 million barrels. Some of it will either have to be sold abroad or put in the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve.
How does a potential increase in Venezuelan oil production affect U.S. domestic oil producers?
Over time, the impact of the restoration of Venezuelan oil production on oil prices is hard to predict. That’s because it will likely take a decade or more before Venezuela’s oil production levels could be fully restored. Long-term oil prices are notoriously tricky to forecast.
Generally speaking, U.S. shale production rates and profitability benefit when oil prices are above $50 a barrel, as they have been since 2021. U.S. oil production rose to 13.8 million barrels per day for the week ending Dec. 26, 2025, up slightly from the end of 2024. Forecasts suggest a slight increase in 2026 as well, if oil prices stay relatively flat.
Longer term, all bets are off, since the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC – a group of countries that coordinate global petroleum production and sales – has a history of telling members not to increase production when they add new oil fields, which sometimes leads to so much disagreement that a price war erupts.
The last time Venezuela moved to increase its production significantly, in the 1990s, oil prices sank below $10 a barrel. Major OPEC members like the United Arab Emirates have been expanding capacity in recent years, and others with large reserves like Libya and Iraq aspire to do the same in the coming decade as well. The UAE has been asking the group for permission to increase its production, causing difficulties in the group’s efforts to agree on what their total production and target oil price should be. That could be good news for consumers, if OPEC disunity leads to higher supplies and falling prices.
Some commentators have suggested China could be the biggest loser if shipments of Venezuelan oil shift West and away from discounted sales to China. How does the current situation affect China’s energy security and geostrategic considerations?
China’s oil imports have been averaging about 11 million barrels per day, with about 500,000 to 600,000 of that coming from Venezuela. Iran and Russia are among China’s largest oil suppliers, and both countries’ industries face tightening U.S. sanctions. There is enough oil available on the global market to provide China with what it wants, even if it doesn’t come from Venezuela.
The real question is about China’s overall response to the U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Beijing’s initial reaction to Maduro’s removal was fairly muted. In a Dec. 31, 2025, speech, however, China’s President Xi Jinping said China’s defense capabilities and national strength had “reached new heights” and called for the “reunification of our motherland.” In light of the U.S. intervention in the Americas, China may see a justification to move more aggressively toward Taiwan.
Why Unlocking Venezuelan Oil Won’t Mean Much for US Energy Prices was originally published by The Conversation and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

Trump-era misinformation has pushed American politics to a breaking point. A Truth in Politics law may be needed to save democracy.
Getty Images, SvetaZi
The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics
Jan 20, 2026
“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” With those words in 1954, Army lawyer Joseph Welch took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch hunt. The time has come to say the same to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.
American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and, at times, outright falsehoods. Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics. But with the ascendency of Trump, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.
The slide into a more aggressive misinformation campaign began during Obama's presidency. Republicans such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and yes, Donald Trump, promoted outrageous claims against Obama—and many Republicans believed them. A CBS/New York Times poll in 2011 found that 25% of all Americans and 45% of Republicans thought that Barack Obama was not a U.S. citizen. The health care reform debate was hijacked by fears that the law would create “death panels” and that it contained “Hitler-like” policies. The silly fear that the reform legislation posed the threat of creeping socialism was, by comparison, quaint.
During Trump's campaigns and his time in office, the misinformation became bigger, more all-encompassing. He could be seen as following Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels' theory of the "big lie": tell a lie big enough, often enough, and people will come to believe it as truth. Hence, we have Trump calling all truthful, legitimate news "fake" news, compared to his own false statements, which he presents as the truth. It started during the first campaign with his outrageous claims about the criminality of undocumented immigrants and has been an aspect of just about every topic he's addressed.
These claims are all incredulous positions that fly in the face of the facts. Why then do so many Americans, not just a small radical fringe, hold these beliefs so adamantly?
The answer is clear … they respect Trump or people such as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, and so they have been fodder for the extreme demagoguery that Trump and others have used to create a rabid, angry, believing voter block. As for the Republican members of Congress, who have either repeated these charges or remained quiet, there's no way of knowing how much of their complicity is a product of their fear of Trump and how much is having come to believe his lies.
If actors on the political scene are so ready to pervert the truth, if they feel no ethical constraints, if they have no shame, we have reached a point where the American people need a Truth in Politics law to protect them.
To this suggestion, both liberals and conservatives will no doubt react with indignation and raise the flag of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment right of free speech. But the right of free speech is not absolute.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that there are limits to free speech. Perhaps the most relevant is the Truth in Advertising law that protects consumers from deceptive advertising. Specifically, under federal law, advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; there must be evidence to back up any claims made; and it cannot be unfair. The law is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.
Why is this exception made to the Constitution’s right of free speech? The reasoning behind this, and other consumer protection laws, is that the consumer is at a disadvantage vis a vis the businesses that cater to them … in this instance, because they don’t have the ability to reasonably determine for themselves the truthfulness of advertising claims and they therefore might make purchase decisions that either actually cause harm or are not in their best interest.
If consumers can be protected from false and deceptive advertising, surely the general public should be protected from false and deceptive claims in political statements and advertising that are likely to mislead and distort the voting process. Free speech advocates will say that citizens have the opportunity to learn the truth; that public debate exposes all falsehoods. That is the myth.
That was, at one time, true. But because of the advent of cable channels that cater to misinformation, the polarized nature of the populace, and the power of social media, not only do incendiary charges go viral within minutes, but people don't have the disposition to question what people they believe in say. Charges can be publicly refuted, but that has no impact.
The danger here is twofold: first, citizens will cast their vote or take other action in ways they wouldn’t if they knew the truth, acting contrary to their interests – such misinformation is thus another type of fraud used to alter election outcomes and policy decisions; second, these incendiary falsehoods have created an emotional, angry, polarized electorate making meaningful substantive debate on the issues impossible, thereby stifling the lifeblood of American democracy – the marketplace of ideas. Much of today’s debate appeals to the emotions; reasoned thought is a scarce commodity.
Much as it goes against my grain and the grain of most Americans, we have reached that point where to save our democracy, we must enact a Truth in Politics law. We can no longer depend on ethics or rational thought to save us from the demagogues.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less

Athletes compete in a hyrox event with puma branding.
Photo by Mathieu Improvisato on Unsplash
The Finish Line Is a Commons
Jan 20, 2026
A decade ago, bootcamp workouts had little to do with appearance or chasing personal records. For me, they meant survival. They offered a way to manage stress, process grief, and stay upright beneath the weight of vocation and responsibility. Pastoral leadership, specifically during the time of “parachute church-planting,” often convinces a person that stillness is an unattainable luxury and that exhaustion is a sign of virtue. Eventually, my body defied those assumptions. So I went to the workout and may have discovered the “secret sauce” behind such entrepreneurial success. Then I returned. And kept returning. Mornings meant emerging outdoors at first light. I found myself in empty parking lots, on tracks, inside gyms, and eventually in a neighboring storefront home to BKM Fitness, owned by Braint Mitchell. There was no soundtrack, only measured breath and occasional encouragement called out by someone who hardly knew my name.
I could not have predicted that such spaces would become the most honest civic grounds I occupy. Today, my sense of belonging unfolds less in churches, classrooms, or boardrooms, and more in bootcamp circles, running groups, the leaderboard on Peloton, and, more recently, at a Hyrox start line—a hybrid fitness space where community looks and feels different.
As I engaged with these new fitness environments, I noticed a broader trend: hybrid, multidisciplinary sports now stand as one of our era’s great, largely unacknowledged social experiments. These sports are rooted not just in endurance or competition, but in proximity. Strangers come together to share oxygen, channel effort side by side, and reveal vulnerabilities. What unfolds when people from utterly different backgrounds hear the same instruction? Start when the horn sounds. Finish in whatever manner you are able.
Peloton was the first to show this to me, not just through the bike's movement. Belonging there was built by the design itself. The leaderboard collapsed every geographical divide. Instructors saw and named people otherwise invisible. A pastor from Ohio could ride with a nurse on a different continent, a teacher in Brooklyn, or a retiree on the West Coast. Everyone brought their own politics and voices, their own worlds. Yet everyone maintained the same cadence, climbed through the same challenge, and exhaled as one when the interval ended. Before the cooldown, nobody asked about your voting history. That detail matters deeply.
Today’s culture constantly sorts and divides. Hybrid sports resist those patterns. You are not the sum of your résumé. You are not your beliefs or affiliations. Here, you are reduced to raw data: your watts, your heart rate, your breath, the resilience made concrete. In these spaces, effort does not get hidden. When effort is shared, it creates trust—far outpacing the slow work of agreement.
Serving as a running ambassador for a couple of years with Columbus Running Company and its training runs only deepened the lesson. There is a soft disarmament that happens when you move shoulder to shoulder with someone for miles. At mile four, posturing folds. Ego acts as a weight, slowing you down. Conversation arises, if at all, only after it is earned. Moments of silence become sacred. Pace is something people must compromise on, not demand. Community emerges through negotiation, not sameness, always happening in the present and never on autopilot.
Building on these lessons, Hyrox scales this logic worldwide. This endurance contest spans eight workout stations, each followed by running, and the experience is deliberately and thoroughly standardized. The rules, movements, and format remain unchanged in Las Vegas, London, Nice, or Leipzig. Democratization sits at the heart of the design. This is not CrossFit, nor does it mimic marathon running. It instead occupies a third, ambiguous space—suited for those unwilling to be confined to a single definition. Looking ahead, in February, I will participate in my first Hyrox event in Las Vegas, raising funds for mental health and aiming to address inequities in wellness access globally for BIPOC communities and children. That choice reflects more than practicality. It is a theological act.
Wellness in the United States has never been neutral. Who is allowed to enter spaces safe for movement? Who receives encouragement to take a rest? Who gets health marketed as hope, and who gets blamed for their disease? Which bodies are welcomed into gyms without suspicion, and which are watched through a lens of doubt? Beneath every fitness trend, these questions linger, unspoken most of the time.
Hybrid sports push back quietly against this narrative. They are not flawless, but their boundaries are soft. The most radical move Peloton made was not inventing a touchscreen. It was their intentionality around representation and the manner in which instructors gave voice to struggle, never attaching shame. They normalized the need to modify a movement. They held up for celebration the person who finished last. They spoke straight to anxiety, grief, and fatigue. In a culture bent on optimization, they modeled what it is to be human, openly and honestly.
Hyrox, by intent, does something similar. Appearance means little. No one needs to lift the most, nor outrun every competitor. The only requirement is that you keep moving. Here, the community honors those who finish, rather than celebrate those who dominate. This distinction may seem small, but it carries meaning for a democracy at risk of splitting apart at the seams.
A democracy survives, like an endurance sport, not on star players but through the continued, repeated effort of those who show up. Participants carry their weight. They return even when it is tiresome or uncomfortable or when there is doubt that their contribution matters. Democracy depends on rules agreed upon by all, and on outcomes that stand beyond anyone’s control. It demands both the agency of the individual and the restraint of the collective.
Weekly, hybrid sports rehearse these very lessons. You learn patience waiting for your turn on a sled. You discover the joy in cheering competitors onward. Occasionally, you find finishing together is a far greater satisfaction than the lonely feeling of victory. Most of all, the loudest presence rarely matches the most enduring strength. These are not trivial things to know.
I train in rooms where people of all backgrounds—Black and white, young and old—share the fatigue of exertion. Where men accept guidance from women, not out of politeness, but necessity. Where vulnerability is less a risk and more a rite of passage. In a nation searching for ways to remember kindness, these are not empty havens of escape. They are training grounds for better ways of being.
As a pastor and civic actor, I take the social contract as a daily practice, not merely as a concept. We promise to care for one another, not because sameness binds us, but because we are inextricably linked. Hybrid sports pull that connection out into daylight. You cannot rely on yourself alone. Stamina will betray you if it is counterfeit. Resilience can be learned but never outsourced. Such virtues must be built up, and that construction is only possible together,
There is a temptation to dismiss all this as boutique wellness, as something reserved for those of privilege, an exclusive and consumer-driven indulgence. While that critique is understandable, it only tells half the story. The true power of these movements has little to do with equipment or entry fees. It reveals itself in the structure of organized challenge, shared standards of accountability, encouragement out in the open, and meaning communicated through narrative. These ideas can reach a wide audience. They can be brought into public parks, school gyms, community centers, and the basements of churches. Technology is not a requirement. They can become critical public health tools, funded as essentials rather than luxuries.
Similarly, meaningful change in mental health does not occur through slogans. Instead, rhythms and embodied practices play a greater role. They reconnect people to their capacity, set boundaries around their limits, and stitch them back together. Hybrid sports accomplish this work gently, without grandstanding committees or complicated policy. They do so a single workout at a time.
When I join the line in Las Vegas this February, my thoughts will not dwell on my finishing time. Instead, I will think of those beside me. Of the children denied safe movement due to the lack of their addresses. Of how sweat erases status. I hope for a country that learns empathy anew, not from louder rhetoric, but by finding its breath together. The finish line, I have come to realize, does not close the race; it opens a shared space for all.
And now, of all times, we are most in need of places that remind us how to share.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Keep ReadingShow less
New Cybersecurity Rules for Healthcare? Understanding HHS’s HIPPA Proposal
Jan 20, 2026
Background
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was enacted in 1996 to protect sensitive health information from being disclosed without patients’ consent. Under this act, a patient’s privacy is safeguarded through the enforcement of strict standards on managing, transmitting, and storing health information.
In 2003, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published the HIPAA Security Rule. The Security Rule aimed to protect the security of a subset of identifiable patient information called Electronic Protected Health Information, or ePHI. Under this rule, regulated entities, such as providers and hospitals, are required to comply with administrative, technical, and physical requirements.
On January 6, 2025, the Office for Civil Rights within the HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the HIPAA Security Rule. NPRMs are a part of the federal rulemaking process in which a proposed rule is published in the Federal Register and made public and open to feedback from individuals, organizations, and other stakeholders. After reviewing the comments, agencies like the HHS can revise the rule before finalizing it. The proposed rule to the HIPAA Security Rule comes in response to a surge in data breaches in the healthcare industry. Cybersecurity challenges in healthcare top those of any other industry with over $10.93 million lost to breaches in 2024, a number that has been increasing in the past years. This NPRM seeks to “improve cybersecurity and better protect the American health care system from a growing number of cyberattacks” by strengthening the Security Rule. The Security Rule had only been changed once before, in 2013, under the HIPAA Omnibus Rule, and these changes were also aimed at enhancing the privacy of ePHI.
Arguments in Favor
Supporters of the proposed changes to the HIPAA Security Rule argue that it is a crucial and necessary move to strengthen the privacy of electronic protected health information. They contend that the changes will close existing gaps in security by creating a more consistent defense and also increase the public’s trust in digital health systems. Proponents emphasize the stricter wording and removal of ambiguous language will enhance compliance and reduce vulnerabilities in protecting sensitive information.
Enhanced Privacy of ePHI
The proposed changes would ultimately strengthen protections around ePHI in response to the high utilization of electronic records and the increased risk for cyber incidents associated with electronic records. HHS aims to establish more consistent baseline regulations for all covered entities to ensure proper compliance and enhanced protection. The rule enforces more rigorous safeguards on formerly addressable controls through mechanisms such as a technical inventory, data mapping requirements, and mandatory authenticity controls. Together, these measures will aim to close existing security gaps and create a more uniform defense against cyber threats.
Increased Public Trust
The proposed rule is also expected to increase and restore the public’s trust in the new world of digital health systems. Currently, breach costs and high frequency of attacks constantly put patients’ data at risk. Between 2018 and 2023, breach reports made to OCR doubled and the number of people targeted and affected by these attacks increased by more than tenfold, with over 167 million people affected in total in 2023. In early 2024, over 100 million UnitedHealth patients were victims of cyberattacks that leaked their private information, exposing the vulnerabilities across the healthcare industry. Shortly after this incident, the NPRM was introduced as a direct regulatory response to the growing concerns. Through a multi-lever effort in ensuring heightened security of ePHI, the proposed rule works to rebuild patients’ and other stakeholders’ confidence in the protection of their digital health information.
Decreased Ambiguity
Much of the proposed rule’s efforts are directed toward eliminating the ambiguity and leniency around compliance by enforcing more stringent and defined standards. It amends the “addressable” language in the original Security Rule which offers flexibility to covered entities on implementing safeguards and replaces it with required specifications to ensure that entities do not misinterpret “addressable” as optional. The rule changes reduce uncertainties around regulation for healthcare providers and provide clarity for enforcement agencies via more explicit requirements. This would promote more efficient and consistent interpretation and compliance around cybersecurity.
Arguments in Opposition
Opponents of the proposed changes to the HIPAA Security Rule highlight concerns about the costs and practicality of implementing the new rules. They argue that the more stringent requirements may burden smaller or resource-limited healthcare providers, potentially diverting resources from patient care or creating workflow disruptions. Critics also note potential overlaps with existing cybersecurity frameworks, which could result in redundancy, making compliance more difficult.
Resource and Cost
HHS’s proposed changes to the HIPAA Security Rule may place significant financial burdens on smaller or rural healthcare providers. The more stringent requirements on ePHI regulation can put a strain on these providers who may lack resources to conduct annual audits, risk assessments, and other mandatory procedures. This, in turn, can lead to resources being diverted from clinical care, impacting timely patient care. Furthermore, the new regulations would require a significant portion of employees in a practice to engage in HIPAA training, which can lead to even greater workflow disruptions. These providers will also have to ensure that they have sufficient staffing and procedures to provide records in a shortened timeframe. This further widens the equity gap between large and small healthcare entities.
Complexity of Implementation
The implementation of the new rule changes may potentially be a complex and disruptive process. Training a large number of employees on HIPAA procedures and performing the now required security evaluations may interfere with workflow and delay timely patient care. With an increase in documentation and compliance burden, entities may necessitate the help of third-party legal and IT experts in order to meet the requirements to implement high level security measures under a shorter timespan. Equity concerns may be raised as a result of disproportionate burdens falling on smaller providers who may face more barriers to compliance than larger organizations.
Overlapping Policy Frameworks
Redundancy and misalignment of policies may also pose a problem for healthcare organizations and entities that already adhere to existing cybersecurity frameworks. The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) and HITRUST Common Security Framework (CSF) are two frameworks that contain similar controls in HIPAA risks as the proposed rule. Many of the changes outlined in the NPRM overlap with the rules that are already in place under these existing frameworks which may create confusion and conflicts that can lead to duplicative efforts. Covered entities may face inefficiencies in complying with the proposed rule without clearer guidance on how the rule changes align with existing regulations.
Conclusion
HHS’s proposed rule to the HIPAA Security Rule is a timely response to the rising concern over cybersecurity vulnerabilities in healthcare. As ePHI use and technology are rapidly evolving, the proposed rule is a necessary effort toward modernizing outdated standards for digital health information. However, despite the rule’s potential for strengthening privacy and public trust in digital health, there are equity concerns regarding the financial burdens and complications that smaller entities may face in implementing these changes. Moving forward, it will be important to strike a balance between security and feasibility in the implementation of the proposed rule in order to effectively protect patient privacy while maintaining an equitable healthcare system.
New Cybersecurity Rules for Healthcare? Understanding HHS’s HIPPA Proposal was originally published by the ACE and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















