NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1HIPAA Security Rule

NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 covers 35.8% of HIPAA Security Rule

24 of the 67 controls in HIPAA Security Rule are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1. 43 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.

35.8%
of the target already covered
24
controls evidenced
43
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of HIPAA Security Rule your NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 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.

84 candidate mappings were examined and 0 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.

Physical6 of 12 evidenced, 6 to do
Organizational3 of 6 evidenced, 3 to do
Administrative15 of 32 evidenced, 17 to do
Technical0 of 12 evidenced, 12 to do
Policies and Procedures0 of 5 evidenced, 5 to do

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.

RA-3164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A)argued against and upheld
Risk Analysis (Required)

Risk assessment covering the systems, components and suppliers in scope.

RA-7164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B)argued against and upheld
Risk Management (Required)

Risk response with decisions recorded, owned and revisited, including acceptance.

CA-5164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B)argued against and upheld
Risk Management (Required)

Tracks identified weaknesses to closure with named owners and dates.

PS-3164.308(a)(3)(ii)(B)argued against and upheld
Workforce Clearance Procedure (Addressable)

Screening commensurate with the access the individual will hold.

PS-7164.308(a)(3)(ii)(C)argued against and upheld
Termination Procedures (Addressable)

Requires notification when external staff leave so access can be removed.

IA-4164.308(a)(3)(ii)(C)argued against and upheld
Termination Procedures (Addressable)

Identifiers issued to external parties are retired at engagement end.

SI-3164.308(a)(5)(ii)(B)argued against and upheld
Protection from Malicious Software (Addressable)

Malicious code protection covering delivered components, updates and supplier channels.

IR-8164.308(a)(6)(i)argued against and upheld
Security Incident Procedures (Standard)

Incident response plan covering roles, scenarios and notification paths.

Claims that did not hold

Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.

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