Tag Archives: itrc

The Threat From ‘Security Fatigue’

There is no mistaking that, by now, most consumers have at least a passing awareness of cyber threats.

Two other things also are true: too many people fail to take simple steps to stay safer online; and individuals who become a victim of identity theft, in whatever form, tend to be baffled about what to do about it.

A new survey by the nonprofit Identity Theft Resource Center reinforces these notions. ITRC surveyed 317 people who used the organization’s services in 2017 and had experienced identity theft. The study was sponsored by CyberScout, which also sponsors ThirdCertainty. A few highlights:

  • Nearly half (48%) of data breach victims were confused about what to do.
  • Only 56% took advantage of identity theft protection services offered after a breach.
  • Some 61% declined identity theft services because of lack of understanding or confusion.
  • Some 32% didn’t know where to turn for help in event of a financial loss because of identify theft.

Keep your guard up

These psychological shock waves, no doubt, are coming into play yet again for 143 million consumers who lost sensitive information in the Equifax breach. The ITRC findings suggest that many Equifax victims are likely to be frightened, confused and frustrated — to the point of acquiescence. That’s because the digital lives we lead come with risks no one foresaw at the start of this century. And the reality is that consumers need to be constantly vigilant about their digital life. However, cyber attacks have become so ubiquitous that they’ve become white noise for many people.

See also: Quest for Reliable Cyber Security  

The ITRC study is the second major report showing this to be true. Last fall, a majority of computer users polled by the National Institute of Standards and Technology said they experienced “security fatigue” that often correlates to risky computing behavior they engage in at work and in their personal lives.

The NIST report defines “security fatigue” as a weariness or reluctance to deal with computer security. As one of the study’s research subjects said about computer security, “I don’t pay any attention to those things anymore. … People get weary from being bombarded by ‘watch out for this or watch out for that.’”

Cognitive psychologist, Brian Stanton, who co-wrote the NIST study, observed that “security fatigue … has implications in the workplace and in peoples’ everyday life. It is critical because so many people bank online, and since health care and other valuable information is being moved to the internet.”

Make no mistake, identity theft is a huge and growing problem. Some 41 million Americans have already had their identity stolen — and 50 million reported being aware of someone else who was victimized, according to a Bankrate.com survey.

Attacks are multiplying

With sensitive personal data for the clear majority of Americans circulating in the cyber underground, it should come as no surprise that identity fraud is on a rising curve. Between January 2016 and June 2016, identity theft accounted for 64% of all data breaches, according to Breach Level Index. One reason for the rise was a huge jump in internet fraud. Card not present (CNP) fraud leaped by 40% in 2016, while point of sale (POS) fraud remained unchanged.

It’s not just weak passwords and individual errors that are fueling the rise in online fraud. Organizations we all trust with our personal information are being attacked every single day. The massive breach of financial and personal history data for 143 million people from credit bureau Equifax is just the latest example.

Over the past four years, there have been a steady drumbeat of major data breaches: Target, Home Depot, Kmart, Staples, Sony, Yahoo, Anthem, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the Republican National Committee, just to name a few. The hundreds of millions of records stolen never perish; they will continue in circulation in the cyber underground, available for sale and/or to be used in the next innovative fraud campaign.

Be safe, not sorry

Protecting yourself online doesn’t have to be difficult or complicated. Here are seven ways to better protect your privacy and your identity today:

  • Freeze your credit rating at the big three rating agencies so scammers can’t use your identity to take out loans or credit cards
  • Add a website grader to your browser to avoid malware
  • Enroll in ID theft coverage with your bank, insurer or employer —it could be free or surprisingly inexpensive
  • Get and use a password vault so you can create and use hard-to-guess passwords
  • Be knowledgeable about common cyber scams
  • Add a verbal password to your bank account login and set up text alerts to unusual activity
  • Come up with a consistent way to decide whether it’s safe to click on something.

There is a bigger implication of losing sensitive information as an individual: it almost certainly will have a negative ripple effect on your family, friends and colleagues. There is a burden on consumers to be more active about cybersecurity, just as there is a burden on companies to make it easier for individuals to do so.

See also: Cybersecurity: Firms Are Just Sloppy  

NIST researcher Stanton describes it this way: “If people can’t use security, they are not going to, and then we and our nation won’t be secure.”

Melanie Grano contributed to this story.

Cyber: Best Defense Is a Good Offense

According to the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC), as of Aug. 11, there have been 472 data breaches, exposing 139,278,685 records in 2015 alone. It’s a safe bet that much of the personal identification information (PII) exposed in those breaches will be – at some point – used to perpetrate fraud. With all that PII out there, you might wonder what industry will likely fall victim to the fraud. The answer, according to the recently released results of the 2015 Fraud Mitigation Study, is simple: Cyber criminals do not choose one industry over another when it comes to committing fraud. In fact, all industries are targets.

The study, commissioned by the LexisNexis Fraud Defense Network, examines cross-industry fraud trends of all types – including identity-based fraud – and surveyed 400 fraud mitigation professionals from the insurance, financial services, retail, government, healthcare and communications industries. Overwhelmingly respondents (84%) indicated that the cyber fraud cases they investigated within their industry were also connected to another industry. And the impact of cross-industry fraud is significant: 77% of respondents said cross-industry fraud cases had a moderate to extreme financial impact on their organization.

So, what can industries do to mitigate cyber fraud? It’s often been said the best defense is a good offense – and that’s what’s required. That begins with changing how they are fighting fraud. The siloed approach to each sector dealing with the problem on its own – and relying only on data within its industry – isn’t adequate. Criminals count on the fact that industries aren’t talking to each other. Once the fraudsters have pilfered one industry sector, they move on to the next unsuspecting industry. But what if one industry sent up a flare to the others?

Imagine if data about fraud cases was shared across industries. The dynamic would shift. Through cross-sector collaboration, industry would have the upper hand. In this scenario, the fraudsters would be at a disadvantage. This is not just a pipe dream. Study respondents recognized they need more information to fight fraud; in fact, 74% acknowledged it would be valuable to have information on fraud cases from outside their industry.

75% of study respondents stated that they do rely on external data analytics to detect and prevent fraud; the other 25% do not primarily because of a lack of budget, awareness, knowledge, comfort level or relevant training. The primary question is, what’s the most effective way to share information?

This is the mission of the Fraud Defense Network: to facilitate sharing of information, best practices and data around fraud mitigation across industry and government sectors. We have created the LexisNexis Contributory Risk Repository, a cross-industry database that houses information about fraudulent and suspicious events from organizations in finance, retail, insurance, healthcare, law enforcement and government. After the data is collected through the Risk Repository, LexisNexis applies advanced analytics to identify meaningful connections that not only illuminate past fraudulent behavior but also help to flag suspicious patterns on future transactions.

Will 2015 Top 2014 in Security Exposures?

It’s hard to imagine how 2014 could be surpassed as the worst year for massive identity theft and data loss exposures.

The news developments of 2014 were relentless and mind-numbing. Heartbleed and Shellshock rose to the fore as two of the nastiest Internet-wide vulnerabilities ever to come to light. Heartbleed exposes the OpenSSL protocols widely used by website shopping carts. And Shellshock enables a hacker to take control of the module used to type text-based commands on Linux, Unix and Mac servers.

“These are problems in the very fabric of what the Internet is built on,” says David Holmes, security evangelist at F5 Networks.

Click here to receive fresh analysis of breaking developments from top cybersecurity and privacy experts.

Meanwhile, Target, Nieman Marcus, Dairy Queen, Home Depot, JP Morgan and SonyPictures led a parade of organizations disclosing major data breaches. Indeed, the tally of data breaches made public in the U.S. hit a record 783 in 2014, nearly 30% higher than in 2013, according to the the Identity Theft Resource Center.

“The ubiquitous nature of data breaches has left some consumers and businesses in a state of fatigue and denial about the serious nature of this issue,” says Eva Velasquez, chief executive offer of the ITRC.

The scary part

Now here’s the scary part: The pace hasn’t slowed in the first few weeks of 2015.

Consider that the financial services sector has spent billions over the past decade on the best defensive technologies and systems money can buy. Yet a low-level Morgan Stanley financial adviser was able to exfiltrate account records, including passwords, for six million of the Wall Street giant’s clients.

Meanwhile, forensic analysts at Dell SecureWorks recently uncovered a novel strain of malware circulating deep inside a corporate network. It’s being referred to as a “skeleton key.” With a skeleton key an intruder can fool the authentication protocols on widely used Microsoft Active Directory systems by typing arbitrary passwords. This enables the attacker to do such things as gain unfettered access to webmail and virtual private networks (VPNs).

“It’s much easier to be an attacker than a defender,” observes Jeff Williams, director of security strategy for Dell SecureWorks’ Counter Threats Unit. “As a defender, you must protect all paths of access, whereas the attacker only needs to find one foothold from which to mount an intrusion.”

If nothing else, the headlines of 2014 should grab the attention of company owners, directors and senior executives. No one wants to make it to the ITRC’s list of U.S. breaches for 2015.

SMBs exposed

But small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) should pay heed as well, says William Klusovsky, a security specialist at NTT Com Security. SMBs should grasp that they are part of a wider supply chain and that modern day cybercriminals are intensively hunting for all weak links, he says.

Small business owners should “understand your businesses processes, be aware of your risk profiles and be able to explain that to your partners,” Klusovsky advises. “And then within reason implement the protections you can afford.”

A good place to start, for companies of any size, is to step into an attacker’s shoes, Dell SecureWorks’ Williams says. “Identify paths of entry and put mitigations in place, whether that be two-factor authentication, removing unneeded services, implementing, monitoring or training staff,” Williams says.

Security consultants can be valuable guides, and third-party managed services can do the day-to-day heavy lifting. But the due diligence must come from the business owner.

The business owner should plan to “remain engaged and active in the conversations with that security service provider,” Williams says.

Over time, all business owners need to develop some level of skill about security policies and procedures and look to infuse that knowledge into the company’s infrastructure.

See more at Third Certainty

Health Insurance Exchange Scam Alert: Beware of Fake Websites

The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) has growing concerns regarding the potential for new scams concerning the implementation of the Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) websites as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare). These exchanges are currently online with enrollment due to start on October 1st.

According to the Act, each state must implement insurance exchanges. These exchanges are to serve as online marketplaces (websites) for consumers to compare rates and make choices about which health insurance coverage is best for them. Each state has the ability to determine the best way to manage these exchanges in order to meet the needs of their uninsured residents.

The open enrollment period for these exchanges begins on October 1, 2013. There have already been some predictions that there will be “bugs and glitches,” to quote President Obama, during this process. IT professionals are already voicing concerns regarding the ability to handle the amount of traffic anticipated on the first day of the rollout. However, no one is talking about ensuring that consumers actually know and understand where to go in the first place.

There is huge potential for misinformation and misunderstanding with this new insurance exchange program. Consumers will now be mandated (or face a penalty come tax time) to purchase health insurance if they don’t have existing coverage. The official website, www.healthcare.gov will be used by the majority of the states. But 17 states have opted to manage their own unique exchange with a different URL. This has the potential to cause much confusion for consumers. While it may appear that this information would easily be located via an internet search, our experience was that the official website was not easy to locate. In fact, when we searched for “health insurance exchange official websites” (rather than “website”) the websites for the 17 states that have their own unique URLs appeared, but www.healthcare.gov did not appear on the first page.

From our experience with scams and fake websites, we believe it would be extremely easy for scammers to create multiple websites that will trick consumers into thinking that it is either the federal health exchange website or one of the alternative state websites. Without known and reliable sources, there exists a great opportunity for gaming of the Internet search engines to attract consumers to websites intent on harming them by eliciting the fraudulent collection of personal identifying information (PII). There is a need to present factual information about which websites represent the accredited websites for the new insurance exchanges.

While there is a comprehensive list of insurance exchange websites on www.healthcare.gov, we are concerned that consumers may not find their way there in the first place. Already our searches indicate that there are organizations using keywords such as “Obamacare” and “Health insurance exchange” in the paid advertising section that are not the official insurance exchange websites. While these websites may not be scams, our concern is that it will only be a matter of time before imposter websites intent on real consumer harm surface.

This concern has a historical basis. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each of the Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs: Experian, Transunion, and Equifax) to provide consumers with one free credit report annually. Confusion still exists between www.annualcreditreport.com, which is the court-mandated website hosted by the credit reporting agencies that actually provides annual free credit reports to consumers, and other websites that offer free credit reports or free credit scores such as www.freecreditreport.com, hosted by one of the credit reporting agencies. Soon after the creation of the original mandated website, dozens of look-alike websites were created. Consumer protection organizations, including the Federal Trade Commission, continue to educate consumers about this to this day (Consumer Information: Free Credit Reports) even though the mandated free website was launched in December 2004.

With the operational launch of these new insurance exchanges just a few short months away, consumers will be scrambling to comply before the January 1st, 2014 deadline. We already stated that we expect consumers to use search engines to locate the particular website they are supposed to use, and that the searches are inconsistent. With that knowledge, will regulators put provisions in place to identify, deter, monitor and address imposter websites? Or do they presume that the existing regulatory or enforcement provisions will deter those who create malicious fake websites intended to capture the personally identifiable information of consumers? Information provided to a fake insurance exchange website could be used to commit identity theft and other frauds.

There will be two types of imposter websites that will require redress. Not all imposter websites are created equal. There are differing levels of harm depending upon the type of imposter website consumers discover. There are legitimate businesses cutting corners and engaging in misleading tactics to secure new business and there are outright scam websites, whose intention is to secure personally identifiable information for malicious use.

Phishing and smishing could eventually come into play.

In 2012 “Imposter Scams” ranked 6th (out of 30) in the list of most complained about fraud events according to the FTC Consumer Sentinel Report. The 82,896 complaints represented 4% of the total complaints received by the FTC.

This category is defined by the FTC as “complaints about scammers claiming to be family, friends, a romantic interest, companies, or government agencies to induce people to send money or divulge personal information.” Complaints included the following: Scammers posing as friends or relatives stranded in foreign countries without money, scammers claiming to be working for or affiliated with government agencies, and scammers claiming to be affiliated with a private entity (a charity or company).

By far, the largest subtype of scam was regarding government agency imposters, with over 43,000 of the total in that category. Previous years’ statistics indicate that year over year, government imposters were the most complained about subtype: 47,454 in 2011 and 49,321 in 2010.

This demonstrates that the scammers continue to find impersonating the government to be a lucrative enterprise. Since this is a new program, even those consumers who normally know not to click on strange links in emails or respond to unknown senders of text messages, may feel compelled to respond and potentially share their personally identifiable information via these means. Why should we believe that the health care exchanges will be immune to this kind of impersonation?

If past behavior is an indicator, we can be sure that there will be financial harm to at least some of these victims.

The Internet Crimes Complaint Center (IC3) 2011 report states that it received approximately 39 complaints per day regarding FBI impersonation email scams. IC3 presented a total loss for this type of impersonation scam (via phishing emails) as over $3 million dollars. This number is just for the complaints that the IC3 received and does not take into account all the unreported losses.

A fundamental part of the Identity Theft Resource Center’s mission is to serve as a relevant national resource on topics such as this. In an effort to provide consumers with the important information they need about potential insurance exchange scams, the Identity Theft Resource Center has developed a scam alert and posted additional information on its website to help educate consumers.

The Identity Theft Resource Center is hopeful that there will be strong and coordinated efforts to educate consumers as to the authentic websites for these exchanges. As they differ from state to state, universal messaging will be difficult to coordinate. Of course, there will be glitches, and as with any new process, we will only discover what these are when the actual user experience is reviewed. However, these efforts need to take place now.

Medical Identity Theft And Fraud

Medical identity theft (MIDT) is a crime that has profound consequences for patients, insurance providers, and health care providers. The definition of medical identity theft is the fraudulent use of an individual’s personally identifiable information (PII), such as name, Social Security number, and/or medical insurance identity number to obtain medical goods or services, or to fraudulently bill for medical goods or services using an unlawfully obtained medical identity. Unfortunately, the definition of medical identity theft and the consequences that are associated with the crime are not common knowledge to the general public.

A recent study conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of Nationwide Insurance found that only one in six (~15%) of insured adults say they are familiar or very familiar with the term “medical identity theft.” Of the 15% that professed familiarity with the term, only 38% could correctly define what a medical identity was (Medical ID Theft Study 4). Unfortunately, this lack of widespread understanding of medical identity theft by consumers is part of the problem and it is costing consumers, insurers, and healthcare providers alike.

According to the most recent Ponemon Institute Research Report, 1.85 million Americans were affected by medical identity theft in 2012. This is a dramatic increase from the 1.49 million affected by medical identity theft in 2011, amounting to an almost 25% increase in just one year (Third Annual Survey 1). This rate of growth has the potential to explode due to several reasons. First, The Affordable Care Act is estimated to reduce the number of uninsured by approximately 30 million (Insurance Coverage Provisions 13), drastically increasing the number of insurers and insured patients that are targets for medical identity theft. Second, HIPAA policies and new rules under HITECH are increasing the use of electronic health records (EHRs) which can be vulnerable to data hackers. And lastly, the data hackers themselves are more sophisticated and cognizant of ways to profit off of personal data than ever before. All these factors combined pose a very serious dilemma in controlling the rate of growth for medical identity theft. Ponemon estimates that the cost of medical identity theft to consumers in 2012 was approximately $41 billion (Third Annual Survey 1). This does not include the untold cost borne by healthcare and insurance providers. We cannot afford the cost of letting this crime grow.

In order to minimize the effects of medical identity theft we must better understand the nature of medical identity theft. The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) knows it is important to assess how consumers’ identities are stolen, how they find out they have fallen victim to this crime, and how difficult it is to resolve once discovered. The Identity Theft Resource Center believes this information can be used to educate and make aware the general public as to what medical identity theft is and how they can minimize their risk or mitigate the cost once they become a victim.

Looking at how medical identity theft victims discover they have fallen victim to this crime is crucial in determining what can be done to discover medical identity theft sooner to avoid increased expenses and instances of fraud. The 2012 Ponemon report found that the most common way (39%) people discover they have become victims of identity theft is by receiving collection letters for delinquent bills. This is bad news as this means the costs for the fraudulent services worked their way through the providers’ billing systems and languished there until they were forwarded to collection departments or agencies. In the time it took for the bill to make it to the collection department or agency, the imposter could have committed many more instances of fraud in different locations. The second most common method of discovery (32%) was by noticing mistakes in their health records, tipping them off to the medical identity theft. This is also bad news as mistakes in health records can have catastrophic consequences which can be fatal.

Fortunately, the third most common method (26%) of discovering identity theft was by victims noticing suspicious postings to a statement or invoice, such as an Explanation of Benefits statement. This is very good news as this usually means the victim is discovering their medical identity theft as early as possible. The earlier the victim notices the crime, the more likely they may avoid damage to their credit score, stop future abuse of their medical identity, and reduce the amount of time and money spent to rectify the issue. This statistic is even more interesting when compared to the previous two years of the Ponemon study, where only 9% of participants indicated that they discovered their medical identity theft via suspicious statements of invoices. This is a promising example of how educating and making consumers aware of medical identity theft can make a big difference in helping reduce the incidence of medical identity theft and its costs as a whole.

Looking into the mitigation process victims are confronted with after they discover their medical identity theft reveals the costs and trouble they have to go through to clear their names. There are two distinct objectives when mitigating medical identity theft. First, the victim must deal with an individual incident such as a thief receiving medical care under the victim’s name and the associated fiscal impact the crime imposes. Second, the victim must now deal with the task of “curing” themselves of medical identity theft, insuring that their medical identity is not abused again in the future. This second objective is extremely difficult and contributes to the devastating nature of medical identity theft.

Regarding the first objective, the process for rectifying an individual incident of medical identity theft is complicated and drawn out. The victim must immediately contact the medical records and billing departments of the healthcare provider that provided the services to the imposter, request their medical records, and inform the provider that they are not responsible for the fraudulent bills. Upon learning that there may be fraudulent information in the victim’s medical record, the healthcare provider may deny the victim access to their medical record for fear of violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA protects the privacy of patients’ medical records making healthcare providers worry that they may be violating the imposter’s privacy rights by releasing the medical record to the victim. Oftentimes, the healthcare provider does not know for a fact that the fraudulent information in the medical record was a result of medical identity theft and cannot rule out that it may simply have been an accidental mixing of two patients’ records. Regardless of the situation, the healthcare provider is afraid of incurring liability under HIPAA for releasing confidential medical information even if it is under the victim’s name. The victim may have to appeal the decision in order to be able to view their records.

In one case, a medical identity theft victim was charged for bills related to the alleged amputation of one of her feet. Luckily, this was easily refutable as she would simply show the hospital billing department that she still has her two feet. Unfortunately, the imposter also had diabetes which prompted a physician, during a subsequent hospitalization, to ask the victim what medications she was taking to treat her diabetes. Note, the victim has never had the disease (Menn). This case demonstrates how frustrating correcting medical records can be and reminds us how dangerous medical identity theft is to the victim.

It is also recommended that victims file a police report and submit a copy of the report to healthcare providers as it will usually help streamline the process. It is important for victims to note that medical identity theft, like any other form of identity theft, is a crime police are required to provide a police report for in most states. Once the incorrect information is identified, the victim must request that the healthcare provider either remove the information or at least flag it should the provider be reluctant to permanently remove it. After correcting the records at the location the imposter received medical services, the victim will then have to request an accounting of disclosures listing all the entities to which the healthcare provider sent the victim’s fraudulent records. The victim must repeat this procedure at each location that has their fraudulent medical record. All of this creates mountains of work for healthcare providers, insurers, and the victims themselves which increases costs in the medical industry for everyone involved.

The second and more difficult objective, “curing” oneself of medical identity theft, does not have a set solution. The problem stems from the decentralized structure of the medical data system. Every healthcare provider, pharmacy, and insurer has its own records and records system. In contrast, the financial industry has three major credit reporting agencies through which almost all financial credit information is processed. Therefore, when you have suffered financial identity theft, a great way to mitigate future instances of fraud is to place a credit freeze with all three credit reporting agencies so that identity thieves cannot abuse your credit again. There is no such central medical record agency for medical records. Thus, it is possible for a medical identity thief to commit fraud with the same medical identity over and over again in multiple locations around the country. The victim will have to go through the individual incident mitigation process every time and just hope that the identity thief will stop using their medical identity.

Since there is no way to get ahead of the thief and prevent the medical fraud from occurring, the best way to mitigate the costs and effects of medical identity theft is for the victim to be vigilant and confront each instance of fraud as soon as possible in order to reduce the amount of wasted time and costs. This repetitive cycle is exhausting and costly for the victim as well as healthcare providers and insurers. In all three years Ponemon has conducted this survey, the number of victims who said they had completely resolved their medical identity theft never exceeded 11% (Third Annual Survey 11). This is an ongoing problem that does not yet have a solution, but it is imperative for all stakeholders to be involved.

All of this information points us to the realization that medical identity theft is a costly and potentially dangerous crime that is incredibly difficult to resolve. To make matters worse, medical identity theft often goes undiscovered for long periods of time and only becomes more detrimental and difficult to resolve the longer it goes undetected.

The Identity Theft Resource Center proposes that one of the best methods of reducing medical identity theft and the costs associated with it is an educated and aware consumer population. To make this point, it is useful to separate out the causes of identity theft listed in the Ponemon report into two groups. The first group includes causes of identity theft that victims have no control over: healthcare provider used identification to conduct fraudulent billing (22%), malicious employee in the health provider’s office stole health information (7%), and the healthcare provider, insurer or other related organization had a data breach (6%). In total, 35% of the causes of identity theft cannot be affected by actions of the consumer. The second group consists of causes of identity theft that a consumer does have a degree of control over: family member took personal identification credentials without my knowledge (35%), mailed statement or invoice was intercepted by the criminal (6%), lost a wallet containing personal identification credentials (5%), and a phishing attack by criminal who obtained personal identification credentials (4%). Thus, the total of causes of medical identity theft that can be affected by actions of the consumer is 50%. It should be noted that 15% of the participants still did not know how they had their medical identity stolen.

Looking at the numbers above, it is clear that the consumers themselves can have the largest impact in reducing the number of medical identity theft cases and the severity of the cases that still occur. Not only do the consumers themselves have the best ability to reduce the risk of medical identity theft happening to them, they are the only people that can reduce the severity of the crime when it does happen. The Identity Theft Resource Center has long understood the ramifications of medical identity theft on the consumer population as well as the medical industry itself. We know that educating the consumer population can be cost-effective and powerful.

The Identity Theft Resource Center is a founding organization of the Medical Identity Fraud Alliance, the first public/private sector-coordinated effort with a focused agenda that unites all the stakeholders to jointly develop solutions and best practices for medical identity fraud. We encourage all industry stakeholders to join so that we can work together in galvanizing the consumer population into becoming the most effective weapon yet against medical identity theft.

How Consumers Can Minimize Their Risk Of Medical Identity Theft

  • Review Explanation of Benefit statements as soon as you receive them as they may detail medical services that you never received.
  • Review your credit reports multiple times a year to see if any fraudulent accounts have been opened in your name, or if any medical bills have been reported as unpaid.
  • Be aware of phishing emails. These emails are designed to look like they are official communications from either a healthcare provider or insurer and ask for personal information such as a Social Security number, insurance policy number, or other information used to commit medical fraud in your name.
  • Do not open attachments in emails from people you are not familiar with as it may have a virus or program to steal information from your computer.
  • Use a Virtual Private Network when using the Internet outside of your home as this will encrypt your signal from your mobile device or laptop.
  • Do not carry your Medicare card, Social Security card, or certain military identification as these have your Social Security number on them. Should you lose your wallet or purse or have it stolen, this information would be extremely valuable to a medical identity thief.
  • Shred or safeguard any documents with personally identifiable information by either locking them in a safe hidden in the home or by storing them on an encrypted thumb drive and deleting them off your computer. Sensitive documents with PII include:
    • Tax preparation papers
    • Explanation of Benefits statements
    • Medical Bills or Records
    • Bank Statements
    • Passport
    • Medicare, Social Security, or military identification card

References
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. “Medical ID Theft Study Results.” March 2012. Print.

Ponemon Institute. “Third Annual Survey on Medical Identity Theft.” June 2012. Print.

Congressional Budget Office. Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision. U.S. Government Printing Office. July 2012. 13 December 2012. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf

Menn, Joseph. “ID Theft Infects Medical Records.” Los Angeles Times. 25 Sept. 2006. N.pag. Web. 20 Dec. 2012