ISO 27001:2022 covers 79.1% of HIPAA Security Rule
53 of the 67 controls in HIPAA Security Rule are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27001:2022. 14 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.
What this leaves you to do
HIPAA Security Rule has 67 controls. Holding ISO 27001:2022 already evidences 53 of them, so the work in front of you is 14 controls, not 67, which is 21% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 53 controls of HIPAA Security Rule you do not have to implement again, which is $5.64 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 53 already evidenced are | 212 hours | 424 hours | 848 hours |
| and the 14 remaining are | 56 hours | 112 hours | 224 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of HIPAA Security Rule your ISO 27001:2022 evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.
156 candidate mappings were examined and 64 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-19, review level machine verified. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.
Where the gaps are
Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.
Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.
Claims that held
A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.
A disciplinary process is the sanction policy this specification requires.
Monitoring activities is the review of system activity itself.
Logging produces the system activity records this review specification examines.
Assigned information security roles identify the responsible security official.
Screening prevents unsuitable individuals gaining workforce access.
Access rights management ensures workforce access is appropriate.
Management responsibilities require supervision of staff applying security rules.
Provisioning access against documented authorisation is this specification.
Claims that did not hold
64 proposed mappings for this pair were rejected. They are kept in the graph rather than deleted, so what was thrown out is as inspectable as what survived. A crosswalk that never rejects anything is not being judged.
retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
Held back 2026-08-19. Generated by the retired metered path, refuted at 56 percent wherever re-judged. Pair pulled from sale pending a rebuild on the Max plan.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
The full report
Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.
Buy this crosswalk