Table of Contents

Executive Summary (pages 2-3)

Curriculum Vitae (pages 4-5)

Statement of Criminal Justice philosophy (pages 6-7)

Exemplars of writing from graduate courses (pages 8-22)

Five-year Plan for Professional Goals (page 23)

Research proposal (page 24-30)

Executive Summary

My goal is to assist in advancing the field of Criminal Justice by utilizing my education

and experience to bring about positive change where it is needed. My passion is for the

application of restorative justice principles to heal those who have offended and to restore to the

community those who committed the offenses to keep our communities intact. I have put

together this portfolio of my abilities, achievements, and education to present substantiation for

the position for which I am applying. Included below is a letter that details how my education

and experience will meet the objectives of the position being sought, along with a copy of my

curriculum vitae, which highlights my strengths in a variety of areas including communication,

understanding of legal processes, and drafting of policies. Next, is my statement of criminal

justice philosophy of restorative justice that aligns with the position for which I am seeking. The

principles of restorative justice can be applied to many settings, including the community-at-

large and the community within an organization as they aid in healing for the victim and

restoration for the offender. I have included a collection of essays that I have written that are

topics which were covered during my graduate coursework and that are the basis for my criminal

justice philosophy. The first essay, Restorative Justice, discusses cooperation between members

of a community as it encourages cooperation in dealing with social dilemmas. Social dilemmas

arise when there is a conflict between an individual and a collective interest. The second essay,

The Criminal Justice System, discusses streamlining processes such as tracking, charging, and

sentencing to dispense justice in a timelier manner to ensure the preservation of rights of both the

offender and the victim. The third essay, Justice in the Community, discusses the application of

restorative justice to our current criminal justice system to reverse the seemingly increasing

mistrust of law enforcement and decreased confidence in the current justice system. Following

the exemplars of writing, I have included a power point detailing my five-year plan with

benchmarks for achieving my professional goals. Lastly, contained in this portfolio is a research

proposal on the topic of Cybercrime, as it is relevant to both the field of criminal justice and the

healthcare industry. The objective of my research is to broaden the understanding of the

economic ramifications and the effects on privacy in the healthcare arena, and what can be done

to prevent or reduce cyberattacks.

JENNIFER K. LAMLEY

337 Cherry Street, Blissfield, Michigan, 49228, (517)260-0571, jennifer.lamley@promedica.org

I have fifteen years of experience in the healthcare industry, including ten years fulfilling organizational needs in the medical staff services area. My objective is to integrate my knowledge of criminal justice principles and theory with legal processes and the standards of credentialing to become an essential member of the team. EDUCATION Master of Science in Criminal Justice with an Emphasis in Legal Stud-iesGrand Canyon University, Phoenix, Arizona

November, 2016

Bachelor of Arts in HistoryGrand Canyon University, Phoenix, Arizona Magna Cum Laude

March, 2015

EXPERIENCECredentialing CoordinatorProMedica Central Verification Office, Toledo, Ohio

May, 2013 – Present

Performs the initial, primary source verification of physicians and clinical affiliates.

Maintains the integrity of the master credentials files for all ProMedica hospitals, including confidential and private informa-tion.

Provides preliminary investigations of material misstatements and omissions and information of a derogatory nature obtained through the credentialing process.

Provides online support for the iResponse verification portal. Supports the transition to a paperless online initial appointment

process and paperless credential files. I have continued to seek out challenges by taking on additional

functions within the department, including the processing of payroll and additional training of staff.

Medical Staff SpecialistProMedica Toledo Hospital Medical Staff Services, Toledo, Ohio March, 2008 – May, 2013

Facilitated the privileging and verification processes for physicians and allied health professionals in the surgery-based and ancillary departments.

Effectively communicated with medical staff leadership, other departments, and facilitated meet-ings for departments, ad hoc committees, and standing committees.

Assisted in the training of physicians in the use of the physician portal for iCare, first generation electronic medical record.

Proficient in the matters of facilitating the Medical Affairs and Bylaws Committee, the Creden-tials Committee, disruptive and impaired physicians’ committees, and fair hearings while work-ing closely with in-house and outside legal counsel.

Entrusted with sensitive confidential and private information. Followed up and continued investigations begun at the verification level. Created policies to ensure physicians met required criteria to hold specific privileges and that cer-

tain benchmarks were met. Credentialing AssistantProMedica Central Verification Office/ProMedica Toledo Hospital Medical

February, 2007 – March, 2008

Staff Services, Toledo, Ohio Assisted in the verification process at both the Central Verification

Office and Medical Staff office levels. Entrusted with sensitive confidential and private information. I was promoted to Medical Staff Specialist within one year due to

my proficiency with our software, excellent communication skills, and ability to efficiently and satisfactorily resolve physician con-cerns.

Registration ClerkProMedica Flower Hospital, Sylvania, Ohio

January, 2002 - February, 2007

Collected and accurately entered demographic, insurance, and medical information in the outpatient, inpatient, and emergency de-partment settings.

Entrusted with sensitive confidential and private information in compliance with HIPAA laws.

Participated in train-the-trainer for the implementation of multiple software programs and provided training for my peers.

I consistently had an accuracy rate of 96% or higher. My proficiency, knowledge of policy and procedures, and ability to

foster a teamwork environment earned multiple promotions and added responsibilities within the department.

Community Involvement Approved as a volunteer cuddler, ProMedica Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, in 2011. River Raisin Festival Committee, since 2012. Foster provider for Australian Shepherds Furever, (501c3), since 2016.

Professional References Upon request.

Statement of Criminal Justice Philosophy

An important aspect of the field of criminal justice is to understand the effect of conse-

quences on criminal behavior and the effect of the principles of restorative justice on the offend-

ers following the end of the restorative process. It is important for people to understand how the

criminal justice system works, to be aware of the law, and the consequences for violating the

law, as certain laws are punishable by fines and fees while others are punishable by incarceration

or even death. The same is true in the workplace. Violations of policies can result in discipline,

up to and including termination. The study of social history and how society plays a role in the

criminality of an offender and his role in society following his punishment has always interested

me and I would like to apply what I have learned in my criminal justice studies to my current and

future workplace position.

The philosophy of restorative justice seeks to draw from both research and practice and

can be distinguished from other criminal justice philosophies by how they address questions

about punishment. For example, deterrent theory is, per Deigh (2014), intended to deter offend-

ers from committing future offenses, however it some see it as short-sighted when incarceration,

which is temporary, is used as deterrence. Retributive theory, which, many consider the best re-

sponse to a crime so long as the punishment is proportionate to the offense, is often viewed as

being inflicted for its own sake rather than to serve a social purpose (Strelan, Feather, & Mckee,

n.d.). Principles of restorative justice are focused on bringing healing to the victim through vari-

ous means, including restitution, while restoring the offender back to the community in hopes

that he can be productive (Young, 2006).

I will be able to apply the principles of restorative justice in my career as a privacy ana-

lyst investigating those who are guilty of violating the laws protecting private health information

will be given the opportunity to make amends for their errors. People should be given the oppor-

tunity to correct their mistakes, especially if there was no criminal intent. Education and the op-

portunity for redemption are often the best remedy and if people believe they will be treated

fairly, they will be more likely to own their mistakes (Robinson, n.d.). By applying to principles

of restorative justice to mistakes in the workplace, employees can maintain their positions and

regain their integrity. Making a mistake should not always or automatically result in termination.

References

Deigh, J. (2014). Punishment and proportionality. Criminal Justice Ethics, 33(3), 185-199. doi:10.1080/0731129X.2014.988429.

Robinson, M. (n.d). Assessing criminal justice practice using social justice theory. Social Justice Research, 23(1), 77-97. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswss&AN=000276149900005&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Strelan, P., Feather, N., & Mckee, I. (n.d). Retributive and inclusive justice goals and forgiveness: the influence of motivational values. Social Justice Research, 24(2), 126-142. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswss&AN=000291952600002&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Young, P. G. (2006). Community justice: exploring possibilities. Idaho Law Review, 42(2), 307-311. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=502627775&site=eds-live&scope=site.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Jennifer K. Lamley

April 20, 2016

Restorative Justice and the Common Good

General welfare, as defined in the preamble to the United States Constitution, is the

purpose of government to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,"

(Santorum, 2003). General welfare and common good refer to an individual’s capability to

procure and retain basic resources and necessities, including housing, education, and medical

care. Studies have shown that when a community’s general welfare is supported sufficiently that

a positive consequence is a lower crime rate and increased stability (Berigan & Irwin, n.d.).

General welfare and common good refer to an individual’s capability to procure and retain basic

resources and necessities, including housing, education, and medical care. Studies have shown

that when a community’s general welfare is sufficiently supported that a positive consequence is

a lower crime rate and increased stability (Berigan & Irwin, n.d.). Individual’ perceptions are

influenced by culture about cooperation and voluntary contributions. Culture also influences

individuals’ perception in supporting the common good. Contribution and support can take form

in two ways. First, an individual may contribute directly to the cause through participation, such

as donating to a charitable organization. Second, an individual may contribute by supporting a

system that controls the contributions of every individual, such as maintaining government

agendas that reallocate resources, such as personal wealth (Berigan & Irwin, n.d). Restorative

justice is a form of cooperation between members of a community as it encourages cooperation

in dealing with social dilemmas. Social dilemmas arise when there is a conflict between an

individual and a collective interest (Berigan & Irwin, n.d.).

Crime is a fundamental violation of people and relationships and the primary objective of

the restorative justice process is to heal the victim and restore the offender to the community

(Reed & Hipp, 2009). While the primary victims are those who are directly affected by the

actions of the offender, others, such as family members, may be indirectly impacted by the

offender’s actions. Each of these relationships must be addressed during the restorative process.

The obligations of the offender are to make things as right as possible. When a crime is

perpetrated against a person who is a member of a special or protected class, it is often referred

to as a “hate” crime and additional charges are often pursued. Protected classes, as defined by

federal law, include characteristics which cannot be targeted for discrimination such as race, age,

national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. Individual states can create other special

classes. The restorative justice process can be implemented when the victim is afforded the

opportunity to share with the offender how he or she was impacted by the crimes.

When a crime is perpetrated against an individual due to the individual’s ethnicity or

religion, for example, the entire community that shares that ethnicity or religion may feel

violated. Through the restorative process, the offender will be afforded the opportunity to hear

how his or her actions affected the primary victim, and, if applicable, family members and other

members of the community who were affected by the crime. If the offender can accept

responsibility for the crime, understand how the crime impacted the victim(s), and make

restitution, then the offender can be restored to the community and will be at a decreased risk for

committing future offenses. The same offender who faces charges in criminal court is not always

afforded the opportunity to hear how his actions impacted the victim, let alone the rest of the

community.

However, it is not just “special” or “protected” classes of people who will benefit from

the principles of restorative justice. These principles will positively impact society including

both juveniles and adults. Often bullying happens when a juvenile targets a peer who may be

different (Schweiger, 1999). Difference may include a physical impediment such as a deformity

or a different way of dressing or acting because of a culture or religion. When the victim is given

the opportunity to explain how he or she was impacted by the actions of the offender, the

offender can change his or her opinions and future actions. Restorative justice allows the

offender the opportunity to make the situation right without retribution. (Dorne, 2008). Special or

protected classes do not hinder the process of restorative justice, but may enhance it.

.

References

Berigan N, Irwin K. Culture, Cooperation, and the General Welfare. Social Psychology Quarterly [serial online]. December 2011;74 (4):341-360. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 19, 2016. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=347b167a-4d1f-4b2a-98ae-e81b4b48d2ae%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4105&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=69672123.

Dorne, C. (2008). Restorative justice in the United States: an introduction. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Reed, O. Lee, and E. Clayton Hipp. "A “Commonest” Manifesto: Property and the General Welfare." American Business Law Journal 46, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 103-137. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson), EBSCOhost. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=347b167a-4d1f-4b2a-98ae-e81b4b48d2ae%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4105&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=502095778&db=ofs/

Santorum, R. (2003, October 20). The Necessity of Marriage. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-necessity-of-marriage.

Schweigert, F. J. (1999). Learning the Common Good: Principles of community-based moral education in restorative justice. Journal of Moral Education, 28(2), 163-183. doi:10.1080/030572499103197. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=14&sid=347b167a-4d1f-4b2a-98ae-e81b4b48d2ae%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4105&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=2005-11239-003&db=psyh.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Jennifer K. Lamley

May 11, 2016

Streamlining the Criminal Justice System

The current state of the criminal justice system in the United States is overburdened,

expensive, and inefficient. Many believe that the criminal system needs streamlined; however,

opinions vary on how best to accomplish this goal (Rocha, 2011). Streamlining the criminal

justice system would allow it to dispense justice more efficiently and effectively. Traditional

suggestions include ensuring that the courts are adequately funded to safeguard enough staff to

keep the process fluid, ensuring that judges are impartial to maintain equality in caseloads and

avoid backlog, holding judges accountable to be engaged in the process from beginning to end to

ensure speedy resolutions to cases, and streamline processes to limit the number of motions that

can be filed or the number of expert witnesses utilized. It has also been suggested to removing

family matters such as divorces from the docket, however, that raises the concern that these

parties may perceive their right to access the courts are being restricted (Rocha, 2011).

Alternative suggestions include modernizing the legal code, utilizing new technology, and

streamlining processes (Rocha, 2011). The current legal code is byzantine in nature as it deals

mostly with issues of right and wrong, it can be overly harsh and is often poorly written (Rocha,

2011). New technology, such as virtual courtrooms, would allow defendants and inmates to

appear before a judge without leaving the jail or prison will save the expense of added security

and transportation and free up personnel for other duties. Processes such as tracking, charging,

and sentencing could be streamlined to dispense justice in a timelier manner.

Streamlining the criminal justice system would make the system more effective and

efficient at all levels, including the federal level, and would facilitate the application of

restorative justice at the federal level (Pomper, 2000). Restorative justice works best in

communities where close bonds exist. By streamlining the processes court personnel, including

judges, attorneys, and clerks would be working together with the common objective of

dispending quick and fair justice. Restorative justice replaces traditional goal of punishment with

an attempt to heal all parties involved, including restitution for the victim and restoration for the

offender (Dorne, 2008). It also seeks to reduce crime, as the offender can bear responsibility for

his actions without fear of additional or harsher punishment and can accept that his actions

negatively impacted his victim, others, and his community (Dorne, 2008).

While the principles of restorative justice may be easier to apply to local communities

and provide the opportunities for consistent application of the processes, application at the

federal level would still be beneficial. Implementing the principles of restorative justice at all

levels of the criminal system would streamline the system (Pomper, 2000). Benefits would

include reduced recidivism, reduced inmate population, and reduced burden on the court system

(Pomper, 2000).

In closing, streamlining the justice system is beneficial to all involved parties, from

enforcement to court personnel to corrections officers, and victims, families, communities, and

offenders. The burden of costs on the taxpayers would be reduced, while victims would receive

some form of restitution and offenders would be restored to their communities. The latter is

especially important in reducing the rate of recidivism as offenders would not necessarily be

labeled “felons,” and would be more likely to be productive members of society and able to

obtain employment.

References

Dorne, C. (2008). Restorative justice in the United States: an introduction. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Pomper, S. (2000). Reasonable doubts. Washington Monthly, 32(6), 21-26. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=1a411cd1-6595-4af0-a107-220cffe4ffa3%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=503673501&db=ofs.

Rocha, J. (2011, November). NACDL. Retrieved from http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=23289.

JUSTICE IN THE COMMUNITY ESSAY

Jennifer K. Lamley

March 23, 2016

Justice within the Community

The word “justice” invokes visions of fair-mindedness, peace, and a respect for people.

Justice is expected to be even-handed, fair, objective, and neutral. Most people can agree on the

former when looking at the big picture. However, when people begin to think about what justice

means to them, personally, or what they have experienced, the definitions may become more

complex and introspective. Individual backgrounds can affect how people view justice, some

people define justice as equality, others define it as equity (you get out what you put in), and

others see it as a safety net for those who are unable to protect themselves due to disability,

incompetence, or some other reason (Burgess & Burgess, 1999). Personal experience and

expectations also define an individual’s concept of justice, which focuses more on the output, or

result. Defining justice becomes more complex when including the concept of criminal justice.

Our current system of criminal justice is retributive, the basis of which is the punishment should

fit the crime. However, there is a movement towards restorative justice, which is centered on the

wishes of both the victim and the law breaker. The victim is encouraged to take a more active

role in the process, ending with the offender taking responsibility for his actions and obtaining

the support to not reoffend. There has been much discussion regarding the positives and

negatives of applying restorative justice to our current criminal justice system, especially with

the seemingly increasing mistrust of law enforcement and decreased confidence in the current

justice system.

Our current system of retributive justice is based on three main beliefs: the punishment

should fit the crime, punishment should be handed down regardless of mitigating circumstances,

and it is ethically objectionable to knowingly reprimand the not guilty or to enforce excessively

harsh punishments on the guilty (Dorne, 2008). Over the past several decades, the concept of

punishment for retribution has become challenging and problematic. Punishment is the basis of

retributive justice. For something to be considered punishment, it must meet four criteria: it must

inflict a hardship or cost on the offender, it must be intentional, it must be in response to an

offense that has been deemed wrong by law, and it must send the message that the offender is in

the wrong (Dorne, 2008). Retribution should not be confused with revenge or vengeance as the

latter are personal, but punishments should be handed down by an impartial and objective

punisher (Dorne, 2008). Some believe that by having a retributive system of criminal justice that

vigilantism is avoided, and this view supports a practical validation for punishment (Dorne,

2008).

When discussing retribution, the question arises of who may provide the punishment. The

most common view is that the victim has the right to impose punishment, but that right has been

transferred to the State, thus eliminating the opportunity for vigilantism and the chance that the

victim is incapable of imposing punishment (Wellford, 1997). It has been suggested that the

offender may act as his own punisher if he has faced public shaming and ostracism, however

formal punishment should not be abandoned in place of informal punishment (Wellford, 1997).

There are two significant criticisms to retributive justice: the limit or restriction of the

punishment to fit the crime at times conflicting and that harsh punishment is not instrumentally

valuable (Wellford, 1997). Even with punishment, offenders still have the choice to reoffend.

Restorative justice centers on the wishes of both the victim and the guilty party with the

goal of restoring the offender to the community. This is in contrast with the retributive system of

justice that focuses on punishment and satisfying principles of legality (Wellford, 1997).

Restorative justice also allows for the victim to play a more active role, thus encouraging

offenders to take responsibility for their actions, including apologizing, making restitution, or

participating in community service. Just like retributive justice, the goal of restorative justice is

to help the offender to not commit additional crimes. In a true restorative justice system, the

focus of addressing crime is moved to the victim and community, with law officials acting in a

secondary capacity (Wellford, 1997). Instead of focusing on what laws have been broken, by

whom, and what punishment is deserved, restorative justice focuses on the victim or community

that was hurt, the needs of the offended, who is the obligor and what are the causes, and the

appropriate process for addresses all concerns and making things right (Wellford, 1997).

While the concept of restorative justice is somewhat new in the United States justice

system, only evolving in the last several decades, it has been a part of the culture of indigenous

people for hundreds, or thousands, of years (Burgess & Burgess, 1999). People indigenous to

North America, have long embraced the principles of restorative justice which provided for the

protection of people, societal stability, and maintaining integrity of the culture (Burgess &

Burgess, 1999). Additionally, restorative justice is practiced in the Mennonite, Amish, and

Quaker communities and plays a significant role in their juvenile justice system (Burgess &

Burgess, 1999). They believe that restorative justice is compatible with their pacifist lifestyle and

culture and is more humane than the more traditional retributive justice system. Some cultures

practice restorative circles which involve many participants, which include, in addition to the

victim and offender, the community, schools, and neighborhoods (Burgess & Burgess, 1999).

Circles include a restorative group for the victim, a separate restorative group for the guilty

party, a sentencing group, and a follow up group that monitors development, with the goal of the

circles to restore the offender to the community (Boyes-Watson, 2014).

The justice system in the United States has witnessed an increase in mediation programs,

partnered with academic centers, that work to facilitate peace-building between victims and

offenders (Coleman & Mendlow, 2010). Restorative justice programs can also be found in

prisons and have been applied to those awaiting trial, both civil and criminal (Coleman &

Mendlow, 2010). Offenders are encouraged to engage in the process and participate in

mediation.

The main objective of both retributive justice and restorative justice is to reduce the

recidivism rate of offenders. Most studies show mixed results, but several studies published since

2013 have shown significant results in favor of restoration (Boyes-Watson, 2014). With

increasing distrust amongst the public with regards to law enforcement and the justice system in

its entirety, a move to restorative justice may restore the confidence level of the public. People

may be more willing to accept responsibility for their actions if they know they will have the

opportunity to be part of society once they have made amends. By participating in the justice

process, offenders can see how their actions affect others and can learn how to be a more

productive member of society.

References

Boyes-Watson, C. (2014). Suffolk University, College of Arts & Sciences, Center for Restorative Justice. Retrieved from http://www.suffolk.edu/college/centers/15970.php.

Burgess, G., & Burgess, H. (1999, July 20). Differing Definitions of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/defjust.htm.

Coleman, J. & Mendlow, G. (2010). Theories of Tort Law. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/tort-theories/.

Dorne, C. (2008). Restorative justice in the United States: an introduction. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Wellford, C. (1997, December). Two roles of criminal justice. Retrieved from http://www.cjimagazine.com/archives/cjief73-2.html?id=547.

Five-year plan:

2016, Graduate with a Master of Science in Criminal Justice with an Emphasis in Legal Studies.

2017, Obtain a position in the Criminal Justice/Legal field.

2018, Transition into a supervisory position within chosen career.

2019, Incorporate education, training, and experience into research and complete research pro-

posal.

2020, Five-year plan will be completed with application and acceptance to law school.

Cybercrime

Jennifer K. Lamley

November 2, 2016

Cybercrime

The issue of cybercrime is relevant to both the criminal justice field and the healthcare

industry. Cybercrime is a serious issue facing healthcare facilities as they find themselves being

attacked by hackers and spammers on a nearly ongoing basis (Hixson, 2013). Cybercrime is

internet based and is therefore a relatively new crime. It can include hacking into computer

networks, flooding the organization’s email application with spam, which is a high-volume of

junk email, and can even copy an organization’s email address or high-jack actual email

addresses and use them to send junk email to other organizations or to send links allowing the

hackers access to the network. Sensitive information can be stolen, such as private healthcare

records, human resource records, or any other information that is available on the network.

Cybercrime costs the healthcare industry an estimated $5.6B yearly (Hyman, 2013). More

research is needed to fully understand the economic ramifications and the effects on privacy in

the healthcare arena (Hixson, 2013). This paper will discuss what cybercrime is, the effects it has

on the healthcare industry, and occurrences can be prevented or reduced.

What Defines Cybercrime

The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines cybercrime as a crime in which a

computer is used as a tool to commit an offense (Cybercrime, 2016). Due to the speed of growth

in the communication and information technologies and dependence of both governments and

businesses, the occurrences of exploitation of software components, hardware, and application

have increased rapidly. Traditionally, three factors that make up the commitment of a crime

include identification of a target, a determined offender, and the absence of preventive measures

(Moise, 2014). However, cybercrime differs from tradition crime in several ways. The offender

can remain anonymous as it is not necessary to be present to commit the act, there are no

established borders, in most cases extensive knowledge of computers or other technology is not

required, and the amount of time to commit the crime is minimal. Attacks on networks can

originate down the street or in a country that is thousands of miles away and attacks can happen

in an instant with multiple attacks happening simultaneously. Next, this essay will discuss the

effects of cybercrime on the healthcare industry.

The Effects of Cybercrime

Cybercrime is a serious and rapidly growing threat to the healthcare industry. The top 15

breaches of data in 2015 affected over 100 million people, thus compromising personal

information that includes private health information, private insurance information, and other

data breaches. Additionally, major health insurance providers such as Aetna, Premera, and

Carefirst have reported breaches that affected more the 143 million records in total (Hyman,

2013). Cybercrime has become a crisis of pandemic proportion, making healthcare more

expensive for patients, insurers, providers, and healthcare facilities. Ponemon Institute, located in

Traverse City, Michigan, is renowned for being a high-security research firm that conducts

independent research regarding data protection, information security policy, and privacy,

reported that cyberattacks against healthcare industry in the United States costs more than $6

billion annually (Ponemon Institute, 2016). Healthcare provides a very attractive target for cyber

criminals due to the nature of the information that is available, including birthdate, social

security numbers, personal and business addresses, credit card and banking information,

insurance information, and medical history.

Cyberattacks affect individuals in more ways than violating their privacy. Stolen health

information is an extremely valuable commodity as the data is longer lasting and cannot be

canceled like a credit card. A patient’s insurance information may be breached and then used

fraudulently, thus causing a stranger’s health information to be intermixed, threating the patient’s

safety with possible wrong diagnoses and treatments. Extricating the fraudulent information from

a patient’s medical record and insurance liabilities is complex and requires a large amount of

time, and most healthcare providers do not help in determining what information has been

compromised (James, 2015). Although charges can be disputed, medical identity theft is more

complicated and stolen medical records sell on the black market for 10 to 20 times the amount of

money as stolen credit card and banking information (Ponemon Institute, 2016).

Cyber criminals know that medical facilities are often behind in implementing the

newest technology that will secure protected information and therefore will not be confronted

with much of a challenge when gaining access to the networks through hacking. Often, once

hackers gain access to a network they can around for a while undetected (Moise, 2014). Due to

the complexity of cybercrime in the healthcare industry and the propensity for the crimes to cross

borders, there have been an increasing number of partnerships involving the U.S. Federal Bureau

of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and even the U.S. State Department

“to address cybercrime in a coordinated and cohesive manner,” (Cybercrime, 2016). Next, this

essay will discuss ways to reduce or prevent cyberattacks.

Prevention of Cybercrime

Ironically, initiatives that are promoted by the healthcare industry to enhance the patient

experience, often puts patient information at risk. Wi-fi enabled devices frequently used by

healthcare providers such as physicians and nurses, tablets and computers-on-wheels that are

used in place of clipboards and paper, and various pieces of equipment such as monitors (fetal,

heart, temperature, cardiac, and glucose) are patient-friendly, convenient to use, and can improve

patient care. However, these devices also pose a high risk for a security breach if not properly

monitored and protected (James, 2015). Implementation of electronic medical records provide

innumerable enhancements to patient care, but also provide a myriad of opportunities for hackers

as all information including medical history, diagnoses, treatment plans, medication lists,

insurance information, and even payment information is included all in one large database.

Healthcare facilities can learn from the examples set forth by the financial

industry that include the use of automated fraud detection services, employing vigorous security

programs to quickly detect breaches, and having a plan that allows breaches to be rapidly

addressed with those who are affected (James, 2015). However, battling cybercrime is out of the

sophistication and expertise of most of the healthcare industry as its focus remains primarily on

providing top-notch patient care.

Users and administrators of internet technology in use in healthcare facilities need to be

trained in best practices of security awareness. Per Benigno (2013), there are several tools

available that are simple to implement to prevent or reduce cyberattacks in the healthcare setting.

Employment of basic cyber security instruments such as a firewall to prevent infiltration by

hackers. Training users to not click on suspicious links in emails and to be able to identify

phishing scams contained in links in emails in on websites. Enhanced verification procedures in

which each user has a unique username and password with which to access the system.

Restricted access to the system based on role of end user, meaning users can only access the

information that is necessary to complete their assigned tasks. Utilizing real-time monitoring to

ensure that users are only accessing information that is required. Implementation of security

polices and continuous auditing for compliance. Installation of a back-up security system in case

the main system fails. Lastly, development of a plan to quickly advise affected patients of any

security breaches so they are able monitor their information and accounts for fraudulent use.

These preventive measures can be implemented relatively fast and inexpensively within a single

facility or within an entire health system (Benigno, 2013).

In addition to the security measures above, collaboration with law enforcement will also

help to combat cyberattacks (Cybercrime, 2016). Many sheriff’s departments, police

departments, investigators, and prosecutors have acquired special training to handle crimes that

involve technology. Many of these law enforcement agencies have the resources to perform

forensic analysis to determine from where an attack occurred. If the breach is serious or meets

certain criteria, federal law enforcement, such as the FBI, may become involved (cybercrime,

2016).

Conclusion

This essay discussed what cybercrime is, the effects it has on the healthcare industry, and

occurrences can be prevented or reduced. Training users and administrators in best practices of

security awareness and implementation of tools to prevent cyberattacks is currently the best way

to protect sensitive patient information and healthcare resources. Collaboration with law

enforcement with resources to investigate breaches will help in combatting cybercrime.

Although, prevention is the best solution for cyberattacks, any reduction is positive and will help

to save costs in an industry that is heavily critiqued for its costs to patients.

References

Benigno, R. (2013, May 14). Hospital Cyber security: Emergency prevention tips. Retrieved from Becker’s Hospital Review, http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/healthcare-information-technology/hospital-cyber-security-emergency-prevention-tips.html

Cybercrime. (2016, November 14). Retrieved from Federal Bureau of Investigation, https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber.

Hixson, R. (2013). The evolution of the business side of health care. Annals of Psychotherapy & Integrative Health. 16(2), 19-21. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2015-24718-003&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Hyman, P. (2013). Cybercrime: it's serious, but exactly how serious? Communications of the ACM, 56(3), 18-20. doi:10.1145/2428556.2428563.

James, S. (2015, December 21). Growing pains: cybercrime plagues the healthcare industry. Retrieved from Healthcare IT News, http://www.healthcareitnews.com/blog/growing-pains-cybercrime-plagues-healthcare-industry.

Moise, A. C. (2014). Some considerations on the phenomenon of cybercrime, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, (Volume V, Summer), 1(9): 38 – 43, doi:10.14505/jarle v5.1(9).04.

Ponemon Institute - measuring trust in privacy and security. (2016). Retrieved from Ponemon Institute Research Finding, https://www.ponemon.org/