LuxSci

LuxSci Receives Majority Investment from Main Capital Partners

luxsci and main capital logos

Main Capital Partners announces a majority investment in Lux Scientiae, Incorporated (‘LuxSci’), a leading provider of healthcare-focused secure communications and secure hosting solutions. The investment reflects Main’s commitment to the healthcare market and desire to build robust, international software groups.

Founded in 1999, LuxSci is a leading American provider of HIPAA-compliant secure communications and secure hosting solutions. LuxSci’s application and infrastructure software enables organizations to securely deliver personalized sensitive data at scale. Certified by HITRUST to support customers with HIPAA compliance requirements, LuxSci serves dozens of healthcare enterprises and hundreds of middle-market organizations. Customers include providers, healthcare IT firms, medical device manufacturers, and companies active in other highly regulated industries.

With the strategic support of Main, LuxSci will strengthen its market position and its capabilities to meet the complex needs of modern healthcare organizations. In addition to fostering organic growth in the North American market, LuxSci and Main will explore opportunities for strategic acquisitions to expand the product portfolio and accelerate internationalization.

Erik Kangas (PhD), Founder & CEO of LuxSci, expressed his enthusiasm for the partnership, stating: “Having led LuxSci through 23 profitable bootstrapped years, I am extremely excited to partner with Main. Their resources and expertise will enable us to expand our technology and deepen our market penetration at a time when the demand for high-security communications solutions has never been greater.”

Jeanne Fama (PhD, MBA), COO & CSO of LuxSci, adds: “We are excited about the partnership’s potential to increase the awareness and adoption of LuxSci’s communication solutions and potentiate their impact in healthcare organizations seeking to improve clinical and business outcomes and increase patient satisfaction and loyalty.”

Main has demonstrated strong performance in both the healthcare and security markets, evidenced by investments such as Enovation (connected care solutions with over 350 employees across Europe) and Pointsharp (security and identity access management software with over 200 employees in Northwestern Europe). Main will leverage its experience and network in these markets to support LuxSci in its continued growth.

Daan Visscher, Co-Head of Main Capital North America, concludes: “We are thrilled to partner with the LuxSci team in spearheading the company’s next phase of growth. We are impressed by LuxSci’s double-digit recurring revenue growth, the underlying product, the management team’s capabilities, and the unwavering commitment to customers. We see ample opportunities to drive value through honing operational excellence, accelerating organic growth, and executing select strategic acquisitions. The result will be a robust, international software group positioned to meet the evolving needs of healthcare organizations.”

Pagemill Partners, the tech investment banking division of Kroll, served as financial advisor to LuxSci and Cooley LLP acted as legal advisor to LuxSci. Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton, PC acted as legal advisor to Main.

About LuxSci

LuxSci is a leading provider of highly scalable secure communications and secure hosting solutions. Certified by HITRUST, LuxSci helps organizations navigate complex HIPAA regulations and safeguard sensitive data. LuxSci serves nearly 2,000 customers across healthcare and other highly regulated industries.

About Main Capital Partners

Main Capital Partners is a leading software investor active in Northwestern Europe and North America. Main has over 20 years of experience in software investing and works closely alongside management teams to achieve sustainable growth. Main has 70 employees operating out of its offices in The Hague, Stockholm, Düsseldorf, Antwerp, and Boston. Main has over EUR 2.2 billion in assets under management and maintains an active portfolio of over 40 software groups. The underlying portfolio employs over 12,000 employees.

Picture of LuxSci

LuxSci

Get in touch

Find The Best Solution For Your Organization

Talk To An Expert & Get A Quote




A member of our staff will reach out to you

Get Your Free E-Book!

LuxSci High Email Deliverability Best Practices Paper

What you’ll learn:

Related Posts

LuxSci G2 2026

LuxSci Earns 19 G2 Spring 2026 Badges

LuxSci continues its strong performance in the G2 Spring 2026 Reports, earning 19 badges that reflect real customer satisfaction and consistent product excellence across multiple areas, including email encryption, HIPAA compliant messaging, email security and email gateways.

G2: A Highly Reputable Peer Review Platformn

In a crowded software landscape, it’s easy for bold claims to blur together. That’s where G2 stands apart. Its rankings are based entirely on verified user feedback, giving buyers a clearer picture of how solutions actually perform in day-to-day use, not just how they’re marketed.

For Spring 2026, LuxSci earned recognition across multiple categories, including Leader, Best Customer Support, and Best ROI. Together, these awards show that LuxSci delivers leading technology and a best-in-class customer experience.

What the Badges Represent

Each G2 badge reflects direct input from customers using LuxSci in real-world environments. These evaluations cover usability, onboarding, support responsiveness, and long-term value. LuxSci’s Spring 2026 badges span leadership, customer satisfaction, ROI, and ease of implementation, demonstrating consistent strength across the full customer lifecycle.

Leader Badge: Market Leadership Validated

The Leader badge is awarded to companies with high customer satisfaction and strong market presence. LuxSci’s placement reflects reliable performance, strong security, and continued trust from organizations operating in highly regulated environments like healthcare.

Best Customer Support: A Standout Strength

In secure healthcare communications, timely and accurate support is essential. Issues must be resolved quickly to avoid operational or compliance risks. Customers consistently highlight LuxSci’s fast response times, deep expertise, and a hands-on approach, showing that our technology and our people deliver meaningful, real-world solutions.

Best ROI: Proven Business Value

ROI includes reduced compliance risk, improved efficiency, and scalable operations, not just cost. Customers report measurable benefits from LuxSci’s reliability, built-in compliance, and streamlined workflows, leading to strong long-term value and a solution that keeps you ahead of security and compliance risks.

What This Means for LuxSci Customers

These awards show LuxSci’s ability to serve organizations of varying sizes, from mid-market to enterprise. All reviews are from verified users, ensuring authenticity and transparency. Customers consistently mention reliability, security, and responsive support, along with overall peace of mind. The recognitions validate LuxSci’s ability to deliver secure, dependable communication solutions backed by strong support, including HIPAA compliant email, marketing and forms.

LuxSci’s 10 G2 Spring 2026 badges—including Leader, Best Customer Support, and Best ROI—demonstrate consistent excellence across performance, usability, and customer satisfaction. These results reinforce its position as a trusted provider in secure communications.

LuxSci MFA

Traditional MFA No Longer Qualifies as “Reasonable” Security

For years, multi-factor authentication (MFA) was considered one of the most effective ways to protect sensitive systems. By requiring a second verification step, such as a text message code or push notification, organizations could significantly reduce the risk of compromised passwords.

But the threat landscape has changed.

Today, attackers routinely bypass traditional MFA using techniques such as MFA evasion, token replay attacks, and consent phishing. These methods are no longer rare or highly sophisticated. They are widely used, automated, and increasingly effective.

As a result, regulators, auditors, and security frameworks are raising expectations for authentication security. For healthcare organizations in particular, traditional MFA alone may no longer satisfy the HIPAA requirement to implement “reasonable and appropriate safeguards.”

In the near future, email systems that rely only on basic MFA, without conditional access or phishing-resistant authentication, may increasingly be viewed as security gaps during risk assessments.

Why Traditional MFA Is No Longer Enough

Traditional MFA still improves security compared to passwords alone. However, many common MFA methods were designed before today’s phishing techniques and cloud authentication attacks became widespread.

Common MFA methods include:

  • SMS verification codes
  • Email-based authentication codes
  • Push notifications to mobile apps

While these mechanisms add friction for attackers, they can still be intercepted or manipulated during sophisticated phishing attacks. Because modern attackers now target authentication workflows directly, organizations relying solely on traditional MFA may be more vulnerable than they realize.

How Attackers Bypass MFA Today

Cybercriminals increasingly rely on tools that capture credentials and authentication tokens during login sessions. Three attack techniques are now especially common.

  • MFA Evasion and Phishing Proxies – Attackers frequently deploy adversary-in-the-middle phishing kits that sit between the user and the real login service. When users enter their credentials and MFA code on a phishing page, the attacker forwards the information to the legitimate site and captures the authentication session. The user successfully logs in—but the attacker gains access as well. If attackers capture those tokens, they can reuse them to access the account directly.
  • Token Replay Attacks – After successful authentication, systems typically issue session tokens that allow users to remain logged in without repeated MFA prompts. This technique has been widely observed in attacks targeting cloud email platforms such as Microsoft 365, allowing attackers to access email data even when MFA is enabled.
  • Consent Phishing – Consent phishing bypasses MFA entirely. Instead of stealing passwords, attackers trick users into granting permissions to malicious applications that request access to their mailbox or files. If users approve the request, the attacker’s application receives persistent access to the account through APIs—often without triggering security alerts.

Why Email Authentication Matters Most in Healthcare

Email remains one of the most critical systems in healthcare organizations. It supports patient communication, internal collaboration, and the exchange of sensitive information. Unfortunately, it is also the most frequently targeted entry point for cyberattacks.

Once attackers gain access to an email account, they can:

  • Impersonate healthcare staff
  • Launch internal phishing attacks
  • Access sensitive patient communications
  • Extract protected health information (PHI)

Because of this, email authentication controls are becoming a major focus for security teams and compliance auditors alike.

Evolving Regulatory Expectations

HIPAA does not prescribe specific technologies, but it requires organizations to implement safeguards that are “reasonable and appropriate” based on risk. As new attack methods emerge, the definition of reasonable security evolves.

Today, many security frameworks and regulatory bodies are emphasizing stronger identity protections, including:

  • Phishing-resistant authentication
  • Conditional access policies
  • Monitoring for suspicious login behavior
  • Controls for third-party application permissions

Organizations that rely solely on basic MFA may increasingly struggle to demonstrate that their authentication protections are sufficient.

The Shift Toward Phishing-Resistant Authentication

To address the weaknesses of traditional MFA, many organizations are adopting phishing-resistant authentication technologies, which can be enabled with tools like Duo and Okta. These solutions rely on cryptographic authentication tied to trusted devices, which prevents attackers from capturing or replaying login credentials.

Examples include:

  • Hardware security keys
  • Passkeys
  • Certificate-based authentication

Because authentication is tied to both the device and the legitimate website domain, these technologies significantly reduce the success rate of phishing attacks.

Why Conditional Access Is Becoming Essential

Conditional access adds another layer of protection by evaluating context and risk before granting access. Instead of treating every login the same, conditional access policies analyze signals such as:

  • Device security status
  • Geographic location
  • Network reputation
  • User behavior patterns

If something appears unusual, such as a login from a new country, the system can require stronger authentication or block the attempt altogether. This risk-based approach to authentication helps prevent many account compromise scenarios.

The Future of HIPAA Risk Assessments

As authentication threats evolve, healthcare security assessments are increasingly focusing on identity protection maturity. Organizations may begin seeing findings related to:

  • Weak or outdated MFA methods
  • Lack of conditional access policies
  • Insufficient monitoring of login activity
  • Unrestricted third-party application permissions

In particular, email systems without advanced authentication protections may be flagged as high-risk vulnerabilities, especially when PHI is accessible.

LuxSci’s Modern Approach to MFA

Modern threats require more than a simple second login factor. LuxSci approaches authentication security with layered identity protection designed specifically for healthcare environments.

Instead of relying solely on basic MFA methods like SMS codes or email verification, LuxSci supports stronger authentication controls and policies that align with evolving security expectations. These protections can include:

  • Strong multi-factor authentication options
  • Monitoring for unusual login behavior
  • Enhanced identity verification mechanisms

By combining multiple security layers within its HIPAA-compliant secure communications email and marketing solutions, LuxSci helps healthcare organizations protect sensitive email communications while maintaining usability for providers, health plan administrators, payment providers, and patient engagement teams.

Conclusion

Multi-factor authentication remains an important security control—but not all MFA is created equal. Attack techniques such as phishing proxies, token replay, and consent phishing have demonstrated that traditional MFA methods can be bypassed. As a result, regulators and auditors are increasingly expecting stronger identity protections.

For healthcare organizations that rely heavily on email communications, the implications are significant. Weak authentication controls can expose sensitive patient data and may soon appear as high-risk findings during HIPAA risk assessments. The organizations best positioned for the future will be those that modernize authentication strategies now, moving toward phishing-resistant methods, conditional access policies, and layered identity protection.

Reach out to LuxSci today to learn how HIPAA compliant email can support both your organization’s engagement and cybersecurity needs.


FAQs

1. What is traditional MFA?

Traditional MFA refers to authentication methods that require a second verification step, typically SMS codes, email codes, or push notifications.

2. Why can attackers bypass MFA today?

Modern phishing tools can intercept authentication sessions or steal login tokens, allowing attackers to access accounts even when MFA is enabled.

3. What is phishing-resistant authentication?

Phishing-resistant authentication uses cryptographic methods tied to trusted devices, preventing attackers from capturing login credentials.

4. Why is email security especially important for healthcare organizations?

Email systems often contain patient communications and sensitive information, making them a common target for cyberattacks.

5. How can organizations improve authentication security?

Organizations can strengthen identity security by adopting phishing-resistant authentication methods, implementing conditional access policies, and monitoring login activity.

LuxSci Automated Email Encryption

Encryption Optional Email Will Fail Audits in 2026 and Beyond

For years, healthcare organizations have relied on click-to-encrypt email workflows and secure portals as a practical compromise between usability and compliance. Or in some cases, they simply thought most of their emails did not need to be compliant. In regulated industries where data security and privacy are paramount, this approach was still considered “good enough.”

That era is ending.

As we progress into 2026 and beyond, regulators, auditors, and cyber insurers are sending a clear and consistent message: encryption that depends on human choice is no longer acceptable. It’s already happening. Encryption optional email isn’t merely raising concerns, it’s failing audits outright.

An Email Threat Landscape That’s Changing Faster Than Email Habits

Historically, email encryption was treated as a best practice rather than a hard requirement. If an organization could demonstrate that encryption tools existed and that employees had access to them, auditors were often satisfied. The box was checked, everybody moved on.

Today, the questions auditors ask are fundamentally different. Instead of asking whether encryption is available, they are asking whether sensitive data can ever leave the organization unencrypted. If the answer is yes, even in rare cases, or even accidentally, that’s no longer viewed as an acceptable gap. It’s viewed as inadequate control.

Why 2026 Is a Tipping Point for Email Security

Several forces are converging here in 2026 that make optional encryption increasingly untenable. Regulatory scrutiny around PHI and PII exposure continues to intensify. Breach costs and litigation are rising, with email remaining one of the most common vectors for data exposure and breaches. AI is also changing the game for cybercriminals, and attacks will continue to increase and be more sophisticated. As a result, cyber insurers are tightening underwriting requirements and demanding stronger, more predictable controls.

At the same time, email user behavior is unpredictable and inconsistent, which is a non-starter for data security in today’s world.

Taken together, these trends and behaviors point to a single requirement: email security controls must be automated. They must be enforced by systems, not dependent on employee memory, judgment, or good intentions.

The Reality of “Encryption Optional” in Practice

On paper, optional encryption can sound reasonable. In practice, it creates gaps large enough to open you up to a breach.

Secure portals are a good example. They require recipients to click a link, authenticate, and access content in a controlled environment. While this protects data in transit, and is a better approach than no security at all, it also introduces friction. And people don’t like friction. Senders forget to use the portal. Recipients ask for “just a quick email instead.” Shortcuts are taken to save time. And every shortcut becomes a risk.

Click-to-encrypt systems suffer from a similar problem. They rely on users to correctly identify sensitive data and remember to take action. But people often misclassify information, forget to click the button, or assume someone else has already secured the message. From an auditor’s perspective, this isn’t a training failure. It’s a set-up and control failure.

Email Security Defaults Are the New Normal

The latest message from regulators, auditors, and insurers is clear. If encryption is optional, data vulnerabilities become inevitable.

What can you do?

Below is a quick email security checklist to help you get started. Cyber insurers may require or recommend the following safeguards during the underwriting process, such as:

  • Multi-factor authentication (MFA)
  • Endpoint protection
  • Encrypted backups
  • Incident response planning
  • Encryption protocols for sensitive data in transit and at rest, including PHI in emails

In 2026 and beyond, healthcare organizations and regulated industries will be judged not by what they allow, but by what they prevent. Automated, encrypted email is the new. normal.

Want to learn more about LuxSci HIPAA compliant email? Reach out today.

LuxSci Oiva Health

LuxSci and Oiva Health Combine to Form Transatlantic Healthcare Communications Group

Boston & Helsinki, February 12, 2026 – LuxSci, a provider of secure healthcare communications solutions in the United States, and Oiva Health, a Nordic provider of Digital Care solutions in social and healthcare services, today announced that the companies are joining forces. Backed by Main Capital Partners (“Main”), the combination brings together two complementary platforms and teams, forming a strong transatlantic software group focused on secure healthcare communications.

Founded in 1999, LuxSci is a U.S. provider of HIPAA‑compliant, secure email, marketing, and forms solutions. Its application and infrastructure software enable organizations to securely deliver personalized, sensitive data at scale to support a broad range of healthcare communications and workflows including care coordination, benefits and payments, marketing, wellness communications, after care and ongoing care. Certified by HITRUST for the highest levels of data security, LuxSci serves dozens of healthcare enterprises and hundreds of mid‑market organizations.

Founded in 2010, Oiva Health is a provider of digital care and communications solutions in the Nordics. Headquartered in Finland, with additional offices in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, Oiva Health offers digital care and digital clinic solutions – including digital visits, secure messaging, online scheduling and appointments, and caregiver communications – serving the long-term care, especially elderly care, and occupational healthcare verticals. The company employs approximately 60 people and has recently expanded across the Nordic region, with a growing presence in Norway and Sweden.

The combination of LuxSci and Oiva Health creates a larger, cross Atlantic group with complementary solutions, serving the U.S. and European markets. Together, the companies offer healthcare providers, payers, and suppliers a comprehensive suite of tools to communicate securely and compliantly, spanning communications, workflows, and virtual care delivery.

Daan Visscher, Partner and Co-Head North America at Main, commented: “We are pleased to announce this cross Atlantic transaction, creating an internationally active secure communications player within the healthcare and home care space. The combined product suite enables healthcare organizations to drive much needed efficiency gains in healthcare provision addressing a global trend of rising costs, aging population, and increasing pressure on resources needed to provide high-quality care.”

Mark Leonard, CEO of LuxSci, said, “We are thrilled to join forces with Oiva Health and believe that together we can truly make a difference in healthcare coordination, access, and delivery. We see an exciting path forward with our customers benefiting from an end-to-end, secure and compliant approach to optimizing both healthcare communications and today’s frontline workers, which we need now more than ever.”

Juhana Ojala, CEO at Oiva Health, concluded, “We look forward to this new chapter together with LuxSci. We are very excited about the strong alignment between our solutions, which especially strongly positions us to expand our flagship Digital Care offering to the high-potential U.S. care market – from care coordination to care delivery to in-home and institutional care.”

Nothing contained in this Press Release is intended to project, predict, guarantee, or forecast the future performance of any investment. This Press Release is for information purposes only and is not investment advice or an offer to buy or sell any securities or to invest in any funds or other investment vehicles managed by Main Capital Partners or any other person.

[END OF MESSAGE]

About LuxSci

LuxSci is a U.S.-based provider of secure healthcare communications solutions for the healthcare industry. The company offers secure email, marketing, forms and hosting, delivering HIPAA‑compliant communication solutions that enable organizations to safely manage and transmit sensitive data. Founded in 1999, LuxSci serves more than 1,900 customers across healthcare verticals, including providers, payers, suppliers, and healthcare retail, home care providers, and healthcare systems, as well as organizations operating in other highly regulated industries. LuxSci is HITRUST‑certified with example clients being Athenahealth, 1800 Contacts, Lucerna Health, Eurofins, and Rotech Healthcare, among others.

About Oiva Health

Oiva Health is a Digital Care provider in the Nordics, offering a comprehensive Digital Platform for integrated health and care services to digitalize primary healthcare, social care, hospital healthcare and long-term care services. The company was founded in 2010 and currently employs approximately 60 people in Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden serving domestic municipalities, customers and partners, such as City of Helsinki, Keski-Suomi Welfare Region, Länsi-Uusimaa Welfare Region in Finland, and Viborg municipality in Denmark with its Digital Care platform. Annually over 5 million customer contacts are handled digitally through Oiva Health’s Digital Care and Digital Clinic platforms.  

About Main Capital Partners

Main Capital Partners is a software investor managing private equity funds active in the Benelux, DACH, the Nordics, France, and the United States with approximately EUR 7 billion in assets under management. Main has over 20 years of experience in strengthening software companies and works closely with the management teams across its portfolio as a strategic partner to achieve profitable growth and create larger outstanding software groups. Main has approximately 95 employees operating out of its offices in The Hague, Düsseldorf, Stockholm, Antwerp, Paris, and an affiliate office in Boston. Main maintains an active portfolio of over 50 software companies. The underlying portfolio employs approximately 15,000 employees. Through its Main Social Institute, Main supports students with grants and scholarships to study IT and Computer Science at Technical Universities and Universities of Applied Sciences.

The sender of this press release is Main Capital Partners.

For more information, please contact:

Main Capital Partners
Sophia Hengelbrok (PR & Communications Specialist)

sophia.hengelbrok@main.nl

+ 31 6 53 70 76 86

You Might Also Like

LuxSci Email Deliverability

How to Fix Email Not Delivered Issues?

Fixing email not delivered issues requires healthcare organizations to verify email addresses, implement authentication protocols, reduce spam triggers, and maintain clean communication channels to ensure messages reach their intended recipients. When an email is not delivered, it triggers communication failures that can disrupt patient care, delay treatments, and create operational inefficiencies throughout healthcare systems. An email not delivered means the intended recipient never receives the message, whether due to spam filtering, server issues, authentication problems, or incorrect email addresses. Healthcare providers, payers, and suppliers experience immediate consequences when critical communications fail to reach their destinations, including missed appointments, delayed care coordination, and lost revenue opportunities. The impact of an email not delivered varies depending on the message type, recipient, and timing, but healthcare organizations consistently see negative effects on patient outcomes and operational performance.

Recovery Strategies For an Email Not Delivered

Recovery strategies after an email not delivered include implementing backup communication methods and improving email authentication protocols. Healthcare organizations can reduce the impact of delivery failures by maintaining multiple contact methods for patients and developing contingency plans for communication disruptions. Regular monitoring of email delivery metrics helps identify patterns of failed deliveries and address underlying causes. Proactive list management and sender reputation monitoring help prevent future instances of email not delivered. Healthcare organizations benefit from establishing dedicated resources for managing email communications, including staff training on delivery best practices and ongoing performance monitoring across different communication channels. These recovery strategies help minimize the long-term impact of email delivery failures on patient care and operational efficiency.

Immediate Consequences

The immediate consequences when an email is not delivered include broken communication chains and missed opportunities for patient engagement. Appointment reminders that fail to reach patients result in higher no-show rates, while lab results trapped in spam folders delay treatment decisions. Healthcare staff may not realize that an email not delivered has occurred until patients miss appointments or fail to respond to time-sensitive communications. Patient portal notifications that go undelivered prevent patients from accessing test results, prescription refills, and discharge instructions. Emergency contact attempts via email may fail when an email not delivered occurs during after-hours situations, forcing healthcare providers to rely on phone calls or postal mail as backup communication methods. These immediate failures create workflow disruptions that require additional staff time and resources to resolve.

Patient Care Disruptions When Email is Not Delivered

Patient care disruptions occur when an email not delivered prevents timely communication between healthcare providers and patients. Referral communications that never arrive can interrupt care coordination between primary physicians and specialists, delaying diagnoses and treatment plans. Pre-operative instructions sent via email may not reach patients, creating safety risks and potential surgical delays. Chronic disease management programs rely heavily on email communication for medication reminders, lifestyle coaching, and progress monitoring. When an email not delivered occurs in these programs, patients may miss medication doses, skip monitoring activities, or fail to attend follow-up appointments. Medication adherence drops significantly when patients do not receive email reminders about prescription refills or dosage changes.

Revenue Impact

Revenue impact from an email not delivered includes lost appointment fees, delayed payments, and reduced patient engagement with healthcare services. Billing statements that fail to reach patients extend collection cycles and increase accounts receivable aging. Insurance pre-authorization requests that go undelivered can delay procedures and reduce reimbursement opportunities. Healthcare organizations lose revenue when marketing emails promoting wellness programs, health screenings, and elective procedures fail to reach patient inboxes. Patient satisfaction scores may decline when communication failures occur, affecting quality bonuses and value-based care payments. The financial impact compounds over time as organizations continue investing in email communication tools that fail to deliver expected returns due to delivery failures.

Operational Inefficiencies from Email Not Delivered

Operational inefficiencies arise when an email not delivered disrupts routine workflows and communication processes. Staff members spend additional time following up on communications that may have been filtered or blocked, reducing productivity and increasing administrative costs. Supply chain communications that fail to reach vendors or suppliers can create inventory shortages and delivery delays. Electronic health record systems generate automated notifications for various clinical events, and when an email not delivered occurs, providers may miss important alerts about patient status changes or test results. Quality improvement initiatives that depend on email communication for data collection and reporting may experience delays when key stakeholders do not receive project updates or meeting notifications.

Technology System Failures

Technology system failures occur when an email not delivered prevents automated notifications from reaching their intended recipients. Practice management software relies on email alerts for appointment scheduling, billing processes, and patient communication workflows. When these notifications fail to deliver, healthcare organizations may experience system-wide communication breakdowns affecting multiple departments. Telemedicine platforms and health information exchanges depend on email notifications to alert providers about new patient data, consultation requests, and system updates. An email not delivered in these systems can prevent providers from accessing important patient information or responding to urgent consultation requests. Integration failures between healthcare applications may occur when email-based data exchange processes fail to complete successfully.

LuxSci PHI Identifiers

What You Need to Know About PHI Identifiers

It’s hard to understate the benefits of using protected health information (PHI) in your patient engagement efforts. By effectively leveraging PHI, you can create highly-targeted and personalized email marketing campaigns, which have greater potential to connect with your patients and customers – and drive your desired outcomes.

However, before diving in, it’s essential to be aware of HIPAA’s complex compliance requirements and how they govern healthcare organizations’ marketing communications. Chief among these considerations is the concept of PHI identifiers and the role they play in classifying and protecting sensitive patient data. With this in mind, let’s explore HIPAA’s 18 PHI identifiers

What is a PHI Identifier?

Before we detail the 18 different PHI identifiers, it’s crucial to first distinguish between what counts as PHI and what, in reality, is personally identifiable information (PII).

PHI (as well as its digital equivalent or electronic protected health information (ePHI)), is defined as “individually identifiable protected health information” and specifically refers to three classes of data:

  • An individual’s past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition.
  • The past, present, or future provisioning of health care to an individual.
  • The past, present, or future payment-related information for the provisioning of health care to an individual.

In short, for an individual’s PII to be classed as protected health information it must be related to a health condition, their healthcare provision, or the payment of that provision. So, a patient’s email address in isolation, for example, isn’t necessarily PHI. However when combined with any information about their healthcare – such as in a patient engagement email campaign – it would constitute PHI.

Put another way, as HIPAA is designed to enforce standards and best practices in the healthcare industry, it’s concerned with protecting health-related information. While the protection of general PII is of the utmost importance, that’s a significantly larger remit – and, consequently, one that’s shared by a variety of data privacy regulations covering different industries and regions (PCI-DSS, GDPR, etc.).

What are the 18 PHI Identifiers?

With the above background in mind, we now have a clearer understanding of what is classed as PHI and, as a result, what data needs to be de-identified. The HIPAA Privacy Rule provides two methods for the de-identification of PHI: the Expert Determination and Safe Harbour methods.

Expert Determination requires a statistical or scientific expert to assess the PHI and conclude that the risk of it being able to identify a particular patient is very low. Safe Harbour, meanwhile, involves systematically removing or securing specific data types to mitigate the risk of patient identification. It’s from the Safe Harbour method that we get the following 18 PHI identifiers:    

  • Patient Names
  • Geographical Elements: street address, city, and all other subdivisions lower than the state.
  • Dates Related to Patient’s ID or Health History: eD.O.B, D.O.D, admission and discharge dates, etc.
  • Telephone Numbers
  • Fax Numbers
  • Email Addresses
  • Social Security Numbers
  • Medical Record Numbers
  • Health Insurance Beneficiary Numbers
  • Account Numbers
  • Certificate or License Numbers: as these can confirm an individual’s professional qualifications or credentials, and when combined with PHI, are exploitable by malicious actors.
  • Vehicle Identifiers: i.e., license plate and serial numbers
  • Device Identifiers and Serial Numbers: those belonging to smartphones, tablets, or medical devices, because they communicate with healthcare companies during provision and can be linked back to the patient
  • Digital Identifiers: namely website addresses used by healthcare companies that patients may visit (for healthcare education, event registration, etc.)
  • Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses: the digital location from where a patient’s device accesses the internet; this can be used to acquire subsequent PHI
  • Biometric Identifiers: e.g., fingerprints, voice samples, etc.
  • Full Face Photographs: in additional to other comparable images
  • Other Unique Numbers, Codes, or Characteristics: not covered by the prior 17 categories

As illustrated by the above list, HIPAA’s list of PHI identifiers is comprehensive, covering all aspects of an individual’s identity and digital footprint. In light of this, when handling patient data it’s crucial to use platforms and digital solutions that have been designed with the secure transmission and storage of PHI in mind.

Harness the Benefits of Using PHI for Better Patient Engagement

As the most experienced provider of HIPAA-compliant communications, LuxSci specializes in secure email, text, marketing and forms for healthcare providers, payers and suppliers. LuxSci’s Secure Healthcare Communications suite offers flexible encryption, customizable security policies, and automated features to ensure HIPAA compliance and the protection of PHI data.

Interested in discovering how LuxSci’s solutions can help you securely engage with your patients and customers?

Contact us today!

 

Google Drive HIPAA Compliant

Is Google Drive HIPAA Compliant?

Google Drive can be HIPAA compliant when used with Google Workspace (formerly G Suite) under a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) and with proper configuration. Standard consumer Google Drive accounts do not meet HIPAA requirements. Healthcare organizations must implement specific security settings, access controls, and usage policies to maintain Google Drive HIPAA compliant status. These measures help ensure protected health information remains secure while benefiting from cloud storage capabilities.

Google’s Business Associate Agreement

Healthcare organizations must obtain a Business Associate Agreement from Google before storing any protected health information in Google Drive. This agreement establishes Google as a business associate under HIPAA regulations and outlines their responsibilities for protecting health data. Google offers this BAA as part of Google Workspace (formerly G Suite) business plans, but not for personal Google accounts. The agreement specifically covers Google Drive among other Google services. Organizations should review the BAA carefully to understand which Google services are covered and what responsibilities remain with the healthcare organization. This legal foundation is essential for any Google Drive HIPAA compliant implementation.

Required Security Configurations

Making Google Drive HIPAA compliant requires enabling several security features available in Google Workspace. Two-factor authentication adds an additional verification layer beyond passwords. Advanced protection program features defend against phishing and account takeover attempts. Drive access controls restrict file sharing to authorized users within the organization. Data loss prevention rules can identify documents containing patient information and apply appropriate protection policies. Audit logging must be enabled to track file access and modifications. Organizations need to configure these settings through the Google Workspace admin console rather than relying on default configurations.

File Sharing and Access Controls

Proper management of file sharing is a large aspect of Google Drive HIPAA compliant usage. Healthcare organizations should establish policies restricting how files containing protected health information can be shared. External sharing controls can prevent staff from accidentally exposing patient data outside the organization. Domain-restricted sharing limits file access to users within the organization’s Google Workspace account. Link-based sharing should be disabled for sensitive documents or carefully restricted with additional authentication requirements. Role-based access permissions ensure users can only view files necessary for their job functions. These access controls prevent both accidental exposure and unauthorized access to patient information.

Encryption and Data Protection

Google Drive HIPAA compliant implementation relies on proper encryption to protect healthcare information. Google provides encryption for data in transit between users’ devices and Google servers using TLS. Data at rest in Google Drive receives encryption with AES-256 bit keys. Organizations should use Google Workspace Client-side encryption for particularly sensitive files to maintain control of encryption keys. Staff should avoid downloading protected health information to local devices unless absolutely necessary and with appropriate security measures. Encryption serves as a fundamental protection layer that helps maintain confidentiality even if other security measures fail.

Audit and Monitoring Capabilities

HIPAA regulations require tracking who accesses protected health information. Google Workspace offers audit logging features that support HIPAA compliance. These logs record user activities including file access, sharing changes, and document modifications. Organizations should configure appropriate retention periods for these logs to support compliance verification. Security monitoring tools can analyze these logs to identify unusual access patterns or potential policy violations. Regular review of these logs helps identify potential security issues before they lead to breaches. These monitoring capabilities also provide documentation during compliance audits.

Staff Training Requirements

Technical controls alone cannot ensure compliance without proper staff education. Organizations using Google Drive HIPAA compliant configurations must train staff on appropriate usage policies. Training should cover what types of information can be stored in Google Drive, appropriate sharing practices, and security feature usage. Staff need to understand the risks of downloading sensitive information to personal devices. Regular refresher training helps maintain awareness as features and threats evolve. Documentation of this training provides evidence of compliance efforts during regulatory reviews. Even with robust technical controls, human behavior remains a critical factor in maintaining HIPAA compliance.

searching for an email

How Can I Prove an Email was Sent to Me?

Almost everyone has been in this situation: someone claims to have sent you an email message, but you look in your inbox and don’t see it. As far as you know, you never got it. How can you prove an email was sent?

searching for an email

How to Prove That an Email was Sent

So, where do you start? As the purported recipient of an email message, the easiest way to prove that a message was sent to you is to have a copy of that message. It could be:

  1. In your inbox or another email folder
  2. A copy in your permanent email archives

 Sometimes, missing emails are caused by simple user errors. The obvious place to start the search is in your inbox and email folders. It’s also a good idea to check your email filtering and archival services. It’s possible that your email filtering system accidentally flagged the message as spam or sent it to quarantine. If it’s not there, check your email archival system. That should capture a copy of all sent and received messages. 

Hopefully, that will solve the issue. If it doesn’t, it’s worth stepping back to understand where the email could have gone and where you should turn next to solve the problem.

What happened to the email?

In reality, there are only a few things that could have happened:

  1. The recipient never sent the message.
  2. The recipient did send the message, but it did not reach you.
  3. The message did make it to you, but it was accidentally or inadvertently deleted (or overlooked).

Let’s begin with what you can check and investigate. Start your search soon. The more time that elapses, the less evidence you may have, as logs and backups get deleted over time.

Did the recipient actually send the message?

First, you should know that the sender could have put tracking on the message so that they were informed if you opened or read it (even if you are unaware of the tracking). In such cases, the sender can disprove false claims of “I didn’t get it!” If you are concerned about an email being ignored, use read recipients or tracking pixels to confirm email delivery.  

If you never saw the message, do what we discussed above and start searching your email folders for it. It could have been accidentally moved to the wrong folder or sent to the Trash folder. If you have a folder that keeps copies of all inbound emails (like LuxSci’s “BACKUP” folder), check there too. Check your spam folder and spam-filtering system. Your spam-filtering system may also have logs that you can search for evidence of this message passing through it. Finally, check any custom email filters you may have set up with your email service provider or in your email programs. If you have filters that auto-delete or auto-reject some messages, see if that may have happened to the message in question.

The searches above are straightforward; you can do many of them yourself. Often, they will yield evidence of the missing message or explain why you might not have received it.

Maybe the email was sent but didn’t make it to you?

Email messages leave a trail as they travel from the sender to the recipient. This trail is visible in the “Received” email headers of the message (if you have it) and in the server logs at the sender’s email provider and your email provider. If you know some aspects of the message in question (i.e., the subject, sender, recipient, and date/time sent), you can ask your email service provider to search their logs to see if there is any evidence of such a message arriving in their systems. This will tell you if such a message reached your email provider. However, email providers can typically only search the most recent one to two weeks of logs. So, if the message in question was from a while ago, your email service provider may be unable to help you (or may charge you a lot of money to manually extract and search archived log files if they have them). 

If your email provider has no record of the message or cannot search their logs, you (or the sender) can ask the same question of the sender’s email provider. If they can provide records of such an email being sent through their system, that will prove the email was sent.

The log file analysis provided by the email providers could also explain why you didn’t get the message. Your email address might have been spelled wrong, there could have been a server glitch or issue, etc. However, if the message was sent long ago, the chance of learning anything useful from the email provider is small. Also, if you use a commodity email provider such as AOL, Yahoo, Outlook, Gmail, etc., you may find it impossible to contact a technical support person and have them perform an accurate and helpful log search. Premium providers, like LuxSci, are more likely to support your requests. 

The last thing you can do is have the sender review their sent email folders for a copy of that message. If they have it, that can indicate that they sent it and can reveal why you didn’t get it (i.e., wrong email address, content that would have triggered your filters, etc.). However, be wary. It is easy to forge a message in a sent email folder, so it should not be considered definitive proof that the message was sent. And, even so, just because the message was sent, it does not prove it ever made it to your email provider or inbox.

The recipient never actually sent the email message

If the sending event was recent, then the data from your email service provider can prove that the message did not reach you, but that doesn’t prove that it was not sent. The sender may claim that they do not have a record of sent messages and that their email provider will not do log searching, and that may also be true. At this point, you are stuck without a resolution. 

While email is a reliable delivery system, there are many ways for messages not to make it to the intended recipient. Whether it was not sent or was sent and never arrived, the result is the same- no message for you. As a result, it’s best not to send legal notices or other important documents only by email. Using read receipts and other technologies when sending important messages can help increase confidence that an email was sent and received. Still, there is no foolproof way to guarantee email delivery.

How Do I Prove the Email Sender’s Identity?

A separate but related question is, how can I be sure the sender is who they say they are? Social engineering is rising, and cybercriminals can use technology to impersonate individuals and companies. If you are questioning whether the sender actually sent the message to your inbox (or if it is from a spammer or cybercriminal), it is necessary to perform a forensic analysis of the email headers (particularly the Received lines, DKIM signatures, etc.) and possibly get the sender’s email provider involved to corroborate the evidence. To learn more about how to conduct this analysis, please read: How Spammers and Hackers Can Send Forged Email.