Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Healthcare Providers Who Engage in Information Blocking Will Face Disincentives Described in an HHS Final Rule    

By Donna Reuter & Tai Williams on July 1, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On June 24, 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released a final rule (“Disincentives Final Rule”) establishing disincentives for certain healthcare providers that have committed information blocking. The information blocking disincentives directly impact Medicare-enrolled healthcare providers or suppliers including hospitals, critical access hospitals, MIPS-eligible clinicians, and ACOs. The Disincentives Final Rule has been submitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication and will become effective 30 days after Federal Register publication.

Information blocking occurs when a health care provider knowingly engages in a practice that unreasonably and likely interferes with, prevents, or materially discourages the access, exchange, or use of electronic health information, unless otherwise required by law or covered by an exception. Examples of information blockings include:

  • Contract limitations that restrict a physician’s use and exchange of medical information;
  • Charging excessive fees to create electronic health record (“EHR”) interfaces or connections with other information technology entities;
  • Using technical or non-standardized methods of implementing EHR and other health information technology that block the access, exchange, or use of medical information.

The Disincentives Final Rule was created pursuant to the 21st Century Cures Act, and established “disincentives” or negative conditions for health care providers that are found to be in violation as determined by an OIG investigation.

Health care providers subject to the Disincentives Final Rule must be Medicare-enrolled providers or suppliers. This rule goes hand-in-hand with the OIG’s June 2023 final rule that established civil monetary penalties of up to $1 million per violation against information blocking actors, but excluded healthcare providers. For more Crowell insights on that rule, see our prior client alert.

Upon an OIG finding that a health care provider has committed information blocking and referred the party to CMS, the health care provider is subject to three major disincentives:

  1. Certain hospitals will be ineligible for meaningful EHR user status.  The Medicare Promoting Interoperability (PI) Program establishes that eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals that engage in information blocking will be ineligible for annual market-based monetary increases granted to qualifying EHR users. Hospitals subject to this disincentive would be ineligible to earn the three quarters of the annual market basket increase associated with qualifying meaningful EHR users. Critical access hospitals will have its payment reduced from 101% to 100% of reasonable costs it might have otherwise earned in an applicable year.
  2. Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) eligible clinicians will not be meaningful EHR users. MIPS clinicians who have committed information blocking will not be considered meaningful EHR users and will receive a zero score in the MIPS Promoting Interoperability performance category. The score is typically a quarter of an individual MIPS eligible clinician’s total final score in a performance period/MIPS payment year, unless an exception applies and the MIPS eligible clinician is not required to report measures for the performance category. This disincentive applies only to the individual even if he or she reports as part of a group.
  3. Accountable care organization (“ACO”) participants, providers, or suppliers may be ineligible to participate in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) for at least one year. ACO providers found to have committed information blocking may not receive revenue they would otherwise have earned through the Shared Savings Program. Before applying this disincentive, CMS will consider “relevant facts and circumstances” which include, but are not limited to the following:
    • the nature of the health care provider’s information blocking;
    • the health care provider’s diligence in identifying and correcting the problem;
    • the time since the information blocking occurred; and
    • whether the provider was found to be an information blocker previously.

Finally, HHS may establish additional disincentives through future rulemaking.

Key Takeaways

As we previously noted, the disincentives apply to health care providers that are eligible for enumerated programs but not, for example, pharmacists, pharmacies or laboratories that are actors under the ONC Information Blocking Rule but do not participate in the PI, MIPS or MSSP. Any appeals of the disincentives are only available under existing authorities of the appropriate agencies and are not specifically provided under the Cures Act for the OIG’s findings of information blocking. It is critical for impacted health care providers to assess their policies and practices against the information blocking requirements and develop (or verify the establishment of) organizational policies and practices to assure compliance with the information blocking rules and avoid violations.

For more information on how this Rule could impact your organization or for further guidance on how your organization can prepare for compliance, please contact our team.

Photo of Donna Reuter Donna Reuter

Leveraging her experiences as a practitioner in the healthcare industry, Donna capably serves clients with her industry experience and her commitment to achieving client goals.

Donna is a healthcare associate in the Washington D.C. office, and her practice focuses on serving healthcare payer,

…

Leveraging her experiences as a practitioner in the healthcare industry, Donna capably serves clients with her industry experience and her commitment to achieving client goals.

Donna is a healthcare associate in the Washington D.C. office, and her practice focuses on serving healthcare payer, provider, association, and industry clients in a broad array of legal matters spanning both litigation and regulatory compliance. She has previously worked on a variety of disputes involving areas of ERISA; medical malpractice; COVID-19; fraud, waste and abuse; intellectual property; and more.

Donna draws from her prior career as a pharmacist to inform her practice of the law: as a pharmacy manager for a major retail chain, and later as a clinical review pharmacist for a nationwide pharmacy benefit manager in Minnesota. She understands claims adjudication and billing processes, the pharmacy distribution chain, formulary management and utilization review processes, controlled substances laws, and pharmaceutical and healthcare adjacent areas.

In addition to her dedication to pro bono work, Donna enjoys mentoring, and is co-chair of the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association’s quarterly newsletter, Bar Talk.

Read more about Donna ReuterEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Tai Williams Tai Williams

Tai is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C., office and a member of the firm’s Health Care and International Dispute Resolution groups. In her health care practice, Tai counsels and represents managed care organizations, insurers, health care providers, and health care…

Tai is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C., office and a member of the firm’s Health Care and International Dispute Resolution groups. In her health care practice, Tai counsels and represents managed care organizations, insurers, health care providers, and health care technology companies in various regulatory, transactional, and litigation matters.

Read more about Tai WilliamsEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Health Care
  • Blog:
    Health Law
  • Organization:
    Crowell & Moring LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo