HITRUST Certification Cost: What Drives the Price of an e1, i1, or r2
HITRUST certification cost depends less on company size than on which assessment is chosen, how much of the environment is in scope, and how ready the controls are on day one. That is why published figures vary so widely, and why a number quoted without a scope is not a budget. This article does not quote prices. It explains the cost components, what moves each one, how to compare quotes, and how to plan an e1, i1, or r2 so the total is predictable. It does not replace a scoped quote from an assessor and from HITRUST, which are the only sources for actual fees. What Drives HITRUST Certification Cost The Assessment Type: e1, i1, or r2 HITRUST offers three certifiable assessments, and the choice sets the baseline for effort. Assessment Requirements Validity What it adds to cost e1 A fixed set of 44 requirements covering foundational security hygiene One year The smallest testing effort, renewed every year i1 A fixed set of 182 requirements covering leading practices One year, with a rapid recertification option More requirements to evidence than the e1, with a lighter renewal r2 A risk-based set tailored to scope and risk factors, the broadest of the three Two years, with an interim assessment at the one-year mark The largest testing effort and a mid-cycle interim assessment The table shows that cost follows the number of requirements and the renewal pattern. The e1 and i1 are renewed every year, so their costs repeat annually. The r2 spreads its cost over two years but carries the largest first cycle and an interim assessment in the middle. Elevate’s i1 or r2 post covers how to choose between them. Scope: Systems, Locations, and Data The systems, applications, data, facilities, and user populations in scope drive both testing effort and remediation. A narrow scope tied to a single product costs less to assess and to fix than an enterprise-wide one. The scope also has to be defensible, because it is reviewed as part of the assessment, and a scope drawn only to keep cost down can be challenged. Readiness and Remediation This is the largest and least predictable component. Controls that already exist and are documented cost little to evidence, while gaps cost whatever it takes to close them: tooling, process changes, and staff time. Organizations that already hold a SOC 2 report, an ISO 27001 certificate, or a HIPAA risk analysis usually have part of the evidence, because HITRUST requirements cross-reference those frameworks. Elevate’s SOC 2 readiness assessment and HIPAA security risk assessment guides describe the evidence that carries over. Fees and Cost Lines Cost line What it is What moves it HITRUST platform and report fees Access to the MyCSF platform and HITRUST’s review and issuance of the report Assessment type and the number of assessments run External assessor The HITRUST-approved firm that tests controls and submits the validated assessment Assessment type, scope, and quality of evidence Readiness and remediation Gap assessment, new controls, tooling, and staff time How many controls already operate and are documented Interim assessment (r2 only) A check at the one-year mark that the program still operates Changes in scope and controls since the first assessment Internal time Staff hours collecting evidence and answering assessor questions How organized and automated the evidence is The table shows where budgets go wrong. Most plans include the first two lines and underestimate the third and the fifth. The platform and the assessor are priced and fixed by the assessment type, while remediation and internal time depend on the state of the program, which only a readiness review can reveal. Why Published HITRUST Certification Cost Figures Differ So Much Ranges Rest on Different Assumptions Anyone comparing published HITRUST cost figures will find wide gaps between sources. The gaps come from different scopes, different assessment types, different company sizes, and different inclusions: some figures count only the assessor, some add platform and report fees, and some add remediation. A figure without its scope and its inclusions cannot be compared with another, and none of them substitutes for a quote on your own scope. Questions to Ask Before Accepting a Quote Ask whether platform and report fees are included. Ask whether readiness and remediation are in the price or separate. Ask what happens to the cost if the scope changes during the assessment, whether the interim assessment for an r2 is included, and what year two costs. A quote that cannot answer these is an estimate of the assessor’s fee, not of the total cost of certification. How to Plan HITRUST Certification Cost for e1, i1, and r2 Choose the Assessment Your Buyers Actually Require Start with the customers or partners that are driving the requirement and ask which assessment they accept. The cheapest assessment that satisfies them is the right one, and moving up a tier because it sounds stronger adds cost without adding a contract. If the answer is unclear, an r2 offers the highest assurance, but it is also the broadest and the most expensive to run, so it should be a deliberate decision. Right-Size the Scope Before Anything Else Define the systems, data, and locations that actually support the product or service the buyers care about, and exclude what does not. Scope is the one lever that lowers assessment effort and remediation at the same time. Write the scope rationale down, because the assessor and HITRUST will ask for it. Run a HITRUST Readiness Assessment First A readiness assessment compares the environment to the requirements of the chosen assessment before the validated assessment begins. It shows how large the gap is, which is the most uncertain number in the plan, and it lets the budget include remediation instead of discovering it midway. Elevate’s HITRUST service starts from that gap assessment, and its risk assessment work supplies the risk analysis that several requirements depend on. Reuse Evidence From Other Frameworks Evidence collected for SOC 2, ISO 27001, or HIPAA often supports HITRUST requirements, because the frameworks cross-reference
Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act Passes the Senate: What to Do Now
The Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act (S. 3315) passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent on September 30, 2026, and it would direct HHS to turn a short list of cybersecurity practices into HIPAA Security Rule requirements for covered entities and business associates. The bill is not law. It still has to clear the House, and any rule HHS writes under it would take effect 36 months after enactment. But the practices it names, multifactor authentication, encryption, and monitoring that includes penetration testing, are the same ones an HHS proposal from January 2025 already points toward, which makes the bill a useful signal of where HIPAA is heading. This article explains what the Senate-passed text actually says, how it compares to the pending HIPAA Security Rule proposal, and what healthcare organizations and their vendors can do now. What the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act Does Where the Bill Stands S. 3315 is a bipartisan bill led by Senators Bill Cassidy, Maggie Hassan, John Cornyn, and Mark Warner. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee reported it in March 2026, and the full Senate passed an amended version by unanimous consent on September 30, 2026. Unanimous consent means no senator objected, so there was no recorded roll-call vote. That is a Senate vote only. The bill now goes to the House of Representatives, where whether it receives a vote before the current Congress ends in January 2027 is not assured. Until it is enacted and signed, nothing in it binds any organization. Headlines saying the Senate has required encryption or multifactor authentication are a simplification: the bill directs HHS to write those requirements into the HIPAA Security Rule, and it gives HHS a long runway to do it. Section 8 Directs HHS to Update the HIPAA Security Rule The core provision for regulated organizations is Section 8. It tells HHS to update the Security Rule so that covered entities, business associates, and non-governmental entities in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector adopt minimum risk-based cybersecurity practices. Four are named: multifactor authentication or a successor technology; encryption of protected health information or a successor technology; requirements to conduct monitoring, including penetration testing, to maintain the protections of information systems; and other minimum standards reflected in national cybersecurity frameworks. The bill does not leave the content entirely open. HHS must base the practices on national frameworks such as the NIST Risk Management Framework, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, along with the Health Sector Coordinating Council’s cybersecurity performance goals and CISA’s healthcare-specific performance goals. The resulting regulations would take effect 36 months after enactment, and HHS could use enforcement discretion for organizations facing extraordinary circumstances. The full text is available on Congress.gov. Two points deserve attention. First, the text says nothing about how often an organization must test, so the cadence for penetration testing would be set in rulemaking. Second, the bill names a broader group than HIPAA covers today. Non-governmental entities in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector appear alongside covered entities and business associates, and the text does not say how HHS would apply Security Rule requirements to organizations outside HIPAA. Vendors that sell into healthcare without signing business associate agreements should watch how that language develops. Other Provisions That Change Day-to-Day Compliance Section 7 would require HHS, within one year of enactment, to issue regulations on how it considers recognized security practices when it determines fines, shortens audits, or negotiates mitigating remedies in resolution agreements. Recognized security practices are a concept already written into the HITECH Act, and the bill adds investments to the programs that can count. The regulations would also have to say to what extent the practices must be in place and what an organization must submit to receive credit for them. Section 6 adds a small but concrete change: breach notifications to individuals would have to state the number of individuals affected. Section 12 requires HHS to convene a working group within one year to find ways to streamline and reduce duplicative incident reporting, with CISA, the SEC, the FTC, the FBI, state attorneys general, and state health departments at the table. Organizations that report the same incident to several regulators have a stake in that outcome. Sections 3 through 5 are aimed at government rather than regulated organizations. HHS and CISA must build a joint plan for responding to sector-wide incidents, HHS must name a lead for cybersecurity coordination, and HHS must expand its own incident response plan. Grants and Rural Guidance Without Funding Section 10 lets HHS award grants of up to three years to federally qualified health centers, Indian Health Service facilities, nonprofit hospitals, rural health clinics, and nonprofits that partner with them. Funds could be used to hire and train cybersecurity staff, update systems, join threat information sharing organizations, contract with third parties, conduct risk and vulnerability assessments, and develop incident response plans. The word that matters is may: the Senate-passed text authorizes the grants but does not authorize an amount, so the money would depend on appropriations. Section 9 directs HHS to issue guidance for rural entities within one year, and one of the strategies it must explore is outsourcing information technology and chief information security officer functions to third parties on a part-time basis. For small organizations, that is a recognition that a full-time security leader is not always realistic. A Virtual CISO is one way to hold that accountability at the scale an organization needs. How the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act Compares to the HIPAA Security Rule Proposal The Same Controls With Different Levels of Detail HHS published a proposed update to the HIPAA Security Rule on January 6, 2025. It covers much of the same ground as Section 8, with specifics the bill leaves out, and HHS’s own fact sheet lists them. The two are easiest to compare side by side. Practice Senate bill (S. 3315) HHS proposed rule (January 2025) Multifactor
Announcing ISO/IEC 27701:2025 The Standalone PIMS Era (and Why It Matters)
Privacy moves to the front row ISO/IEC 27701:2025 has landed and it changes the privacy playbook. First launched in 2019 as an extension to ISO/IEC 27001, 27701 is now a standalone, certifiable Privacy Information Management System (PIMS). Practically, that means organizations can build and certify an auditable privacy program without first standing up a full Information Security Management System (ISMS). For privacy leaders, DPOs, CISOs, and product teams handling PII at scale (SaaS/AI platforms, healthcare, fintech, public sector), this update clarifies governance, reduces audit friction, and accelerates proof of accountability. Quick take: 27701:2025 = independent certification path, cleaner alignment with 27001:2022/27002, a sharper privacy lens (DPIAs, cross-border transfers, AI & cloud governance, vendor oversight) and stronger expectations for leadership, KPIs, and evidence. What’s new in ISO/IEC 27701:2025 1) Standalone certification pathway 27701 is no longer tethered to ISO/IEC 27001. Privacy can be implemented and certified independently ideal for organizations that need a privacy-first signal now (e.g., data platforms, AI products, cloud-native services) and plan to layer an ISMS later. 2) Cleaner Alignment with ISO 27001:2022 / ISO 27002:2022 The 2025 edition syncs with the 2022 security cycle, so your privacy and security controls map cleanly. If you already run 27001:2022, expect less evidence of duplication and a smoother audit flow (Annex A’s streamlined 93 controls help). 3) Explicit Focus on Modern Privacy Challenges Compared with 2019, you’ll see less “general security” and more privacy-specific expectations: privacy risk and DPIAs, cross-border transfers, AI & cloud governance, and more robust processor/sub-processor oversight. 4) Stronger governance and accountability Top management involvement defined roles (e.g., DPO/equivalent); KPIs, internal audits, and Management Review are first-class elements of evidence over promises. This is exactly what partners and regulators want to see. Why ISO/IEC 27701:2025 matters now 27701:2025 ↔ 27001:2022 (how “alignment” saves time) “Alignment” isn’t marketing fluff; it’s operational efficiency: If you already run 27001:2022, 27701:2025 slots in neatly. If you don’t, you can still start with a standalone PIMS and add 27001 later without rework. What “modernized privacy expectations” look like in practice Privacy risk & DPIAs (make them operational). Treat DPIAs as a working mechanism: define triggers (new purposes, new data categories, new model training sources), route actions to owners, and update your risk register. Tie outcomes to controls, metrics, and Management Review. Cross-border transfers (evidence beats assumptions). Describe transfer mechanisms (e.g., SCCs), run transfer risk assessments, document safeguards, and monitor changes in country risk, vendor posture, and new sub-processors. Keep a living record. AI & cloud governance (privacy where the data really is). Third-party & sub-processor oversight (from clauses to controls). Make vendor onboarding, contractual clauses, and ongoing monitoring operational: evidence of due diligence, right-to-audit processes, and periodic checks that match your risk profile. From policy to proof: the PIMS operating model auditors expect A credible PIMS is more than documents, it’s evidence-backed operations: If it isn’t evidenced, it isn’t implemented. Three adoption paths (pick your lane) Path A: Already certified to ISO/IEC 27701:2019 Path B: Have ISO/IEC 27001:2022 but not 27701 Path C: No ISO certifications yet 90-180-day implementation roadmap Phase 1: Scope & stakeholders (Weeks 1–3) Define boundaries, systems, data flows, controller/processor roles, legal obligations; identify high-risk processing (AI, cross-border, special categories). Phase 2: Baseline privacy risk (Weeks 2–6) Stand up/refresh risk methodology; define DPIA triggers and templates; seed the risk register; tie risks to objectives and controls. Phase 3: Clause & control mapping (Weeks 4–8) Map current practices to 27701:2025; highlight gaps in rights operations, RoPA, vendor oversight, transfer governance, AI/cloud guardrails. Phase 4: Remediation & operationalization (Weeks 6–14) Address high-impact gaps first (rights SLAs, incident playbooks, vendor clauses and monitoring, transfer assessments). Train roles; run tabletop exercises; generate audit-ready evidence. Phase 5: Internal audit, Management Review, certification (Weeks 12–18) Validate readiness, escalate decisions in Management Review, then book Stage 1/Stage 2 with your CB; confirm transition rules if coming from 2019. Quick answers Is ISO/IEC 27701:2025 independent from ISO 27001? Yes, 27701 is now a standalone management system standard; certification no longer depends on ISO 27001. Does 27701:2025 align with ISO 27001:2022 and 27002? Yes, terminology and control logic are synchronized, making dual-framework operations more efficient (and cutting duplicate evidence). What does a PIMS certificate actually prove? That your organization runs an auditable privacy management system for governance, risk, operations (rights, vendors, transfers, incidents), metrics, internal audits, and continual improvement aligned to an international standard. What changed from 2019 to 2025? 27701 moved from being a 27001/27002 extension to a standalone MSS, with modernized emphasis on privacy risk, AI/cloud, cross-border transfers, and governance. How many Annex A controls are in 27001:2022 and why should privacy be taken care of? 93 controls in four themes; this streamlining helps PIMS/ISMS mapping and reduces audit friction when you run both systems. How Elevate Consult Helps How does Elevate make this real? AI regulations and privacy standards are accelerating worldwide. Organizations that prepare early reduce business, reputational, and regulatory risk while preserving the ability to innovate. ISO/IEC 27701:2025 gives you a pragmatic, risk-based privacy playbook; Elevate Consult turns that playbook into measurable outcomes for your organization. What we do, end to end: Ready to move? Get a 90-180-day PIMS roadmap tailored to your environment. Click here or contact us to start your assessment. Conclusion: Put your privacy where your evidence is ISO/IEC 27701:2025 elevates privacy from annex to first-class management system. Whether you’re a DPO, CISO, GC, or head of data, it gives you a clear, certifiable path to prove accountability on its own or alongside ISO 27001. If trust is your moat, this edition is your chance to prove it with evidence.
FedRAMP Authorization Act Signed by President Biden
On Wednesday January 11th, FedRAMP was excited to announce that the FedRAMP Authorization Act has been signed by President Biden as a part of the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). According to FedRAMP. This will allow the agency to: Quick review – what is FedRAMP? The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program was established in 2011 to provide a cost-effective, risk-based approach for the adoption and use of cloud services by the federal government. The mission has always been to empower agencies to use modern cloud technologies with an emphasis on security and protection of federal information. The reuse of FedRAMP authorized cloud products has grown exponentially since FY22, boasting a community that now includes 204 participating agencies, over 280 cloud service providers, and 40 recognized third party assessment organizations. Operating under the umbrella of the General Services Administration, the passing of this Act positions the FedRAMP program to be considered an authoritative standardization. Page 1056 (sec. 3608) of the NDAA (FY23 National Defense Authorization Act) states: ‘‘There is established within the General Services Administration the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program. The Administrator, subject to section 3614, shall establish a Government-wide program that provides a standardized, reusable approach to security assessment and authorization for cloud computing products and services that process unclassified information used by agencies.” A Federal Secure Cloud Advisory Committee will also be formed per the new amendement. Their primary role will be “to ensure effective and ongoing coordination of agency adoption, use, authorization, monitoring, acquisition, and security of cloud computing products and services to enable agency mission and administrative priorities.” (Pg. 1062, sec. 3616) The agency enables the federal government to accelerate the adoption of cloud computing by creating transparent standards and processes for security authorizations, while also allowing agencies to leverage security authorizations on a government-wide scale. For more information on the benefits and goals of the FedRAMP program, please visit www.fedramp.gov. For compliance inquiries, visit our FedRAMP service page or contact us today!
Cybersecurity Could Emerge as the Biggest Challenge in 2023
Security risks for businesses have risen dramatically as companies go agile and expand hybrid working, prompting remodeling of their data security systems Over the next few years, advancements in technology will cause a substantial increase in IT investments within businesses across all sectors. It is estimated that by 2022, spending on digital transformation technologies will amount to a gargantuan $1.8 trillion. If the rapid growth is opening up new opportunities, it also has an added element of risk of doing business in the connected world. Cyber criminals are taking advantage of new and advanced methods to cause considerable damage to organisations’ reputation, which could potentially cause huge financial losses. For businesses, taking the right preventive steps and investing in security measures is just another part of doing business. India has been one of the most vulnerable countries to cyberattacks since the pandemic, as a staggering 68 percent of companies […] Click here to view original article: economictimes.indiatimes.com
Is your cybersecurity wrapped up for the holidays?
New research published in November revealed that the severity of inbound cyberthreats increased during holiday months. The findings , from our Barracuda XDR team’ Global Security Operations Center, suggest that cyberattackers may take advantage of IT security professionals being away from the workplace to launch more complex, higher risk attacks — possibly in the hope that understaffed security departments are less likely to be monitoring the network for threats or equipped to deal with any crisis. As the annual festive season gets underway, what can IT security teams put in place to maximise their defences until they return? A clean desk policy applied to devices too It may help to provide employees with a pre-holiday security checklist, one that include cyber-hygiene essentials like logging out of corporate applications, backing up their work, and ensuring their patches and antivirus software are up to date. Support your staff The holiday period can […] Click here to view original article: betanews.com
Technology, cybersecurity, and its effects on global supply chains
Regular Price supply chain There is a need to ensure that global supply chains are secure. This is particularly significant given that disruptions to the global supply chain can adversely affect food supply, mineral resources, and access to raw materials and finished products, to mention a few. Despite this, supply chains remain vulnerable to attacks and cyber security breaches, with severe consequences. Beyond traditional security threats to the global supply chain, like armed conflict owing to the activities of terrorists and insurgents, as well as climate change resulting in extreme weather conditions, the threat posed by cybersecurity remains one of the most significant threats to the global supply chain. Click here to view original article: businessday.ng
18 cybersecurity predictions for 2023
Cybersecurity Security Enterprise Services Security Leadership and Management Logical Security Cybersecurity News Information security leaders share their forecast for 2023 and offer cyber risk management best practices. Image via Getty Images As you build your cybersecurity resilience planning, priorities and roadmap for the year ahead, security and risk experts offer the following cybersecurity predictions for 2023. 1. Demand for cyber insurance is going to increase, but it’s going to become harder to get, by Jon France, CISO at (ISC)² “Cybersecurity awareness has its benefits and drawbacks…one of those drawbacks is higher premiums for cyber insurance. In Q1 2022 alone, premiums for cyber insurance rose nearly 28% compared with Q4 2021. This is largely due to heightened awareness of the financial and reputational risks of cyber incidents such as ransomware attacks, data breaches, vulnerability exploitation and more. At the same time, underwriters are also making requirements for obtaining cyber […] Click here to view original article: www.securitymagazine.com
The Crucial Role Of MSPs In Offering Data Protection And Cybersecurity For SMEs
SMEs today, more than ever, have a shot at sustained success against the big players Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Earlier this year, records from the ministry of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) pegged the number of businesses in this category at over 7.9 million . Given the sheer size of the SME segment, it is evident that small businesses play a crucial role in India’s race to become a $5-trillion economy. Nearly 8 million SMEs dot India’s landscape today. Their resilience and entrepreneurial spirit drive India’s growth story and are vital catalysts in our nation’s rising prominence. That said, they have their fair share of hurdles to tackle, with cybersecurity (or the lack of it) being one of the most threatening. CyberPeace Foundation—the world’s first non-profit think tank on cybersecurity—outlined some rather startling numbers in its recent report . Around 43 per cent of cyberattacks in […] Click here to view original article: www.entrepreneur.com
Cybercrime (and Security) Predictions for 2023
Threat actors continue to adapt to the latest technologies, practices, and even data privacy laws—and it’s up to organizations to stay one step ahead by implementing strong cybersecurity measures and programs. Here’s a look at how cybercrime will evolve in 2023 and what you can do to secure and protect your organization in the year ahead. Increase in digital supply chain attacks With the rapid modernization and digitization of supply chains come new security risks. Gartner predicts that by 2025, 45% of organizations worldwide will have experienced attacks on their software supply chains—this is a three-fold increase from 2021. Previously, these types of attacks weren’t even likely to happen because supply chains weren’t connected to the internet. But now that they are, supply chains need to be secured properly. The introduction of new technology around software supply chains means there are likely security holes that have yet to be identified, […] Click here to view original article: thehackernews.com