Health Law Advisor

On August 5, 2024, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology— now known as the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (“ASTP/ONC”) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”)—issued a proposed rule titled “Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability: Patient Engagement, Information Sharing, and Public Health Interoperability” (the “HTI-2 Proposed Rule”), as part of its ongoing efforts to enhance health care interoperability and data sharing. The HTI-2 Proposed Rule builds on the January 2024 “Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability” final rule (the “HTI-1 Final Rule”). Comments on the HTI-2 Proposed Rule are due October 4.

Through the proposed changes, ASTP/ONC would (1) make sweeping changes to its Health Information Technology Certification Program (“HIT Certification Program”); (2) make revisions to the information blocking regulation, including implementing two new information blocking exceptions; and (3) codify and implement the statutory provisions regarding the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (“TEFCA”) requirements.

New and Revised HIT Certification Criteria

The proposed changes in the HTI-2 Proposed Rule would significantly expand the scope of the HIT Certification Program to introduce additional functionality and new technology for developers of HIT used by health care providers and HIT that is intended to be used by payers and for public health agencies. The certification criteria introduced in HTI-2 for payers is the first time that the health IT certification program is being extended beyond the certified electronic health record (EHR) technology developers. Some notable changes include the following:

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  In the past decade, certified electronic health records (EHRs) have been instrumental in transforming medical records from paper to digital formats.

What obstacles are currently preventing providers from sharing patient data with each other or patients from sharing health information from their personal devices with their providers? In this episode of our special series on interoperability, hear from Tomaž Gornik, founder and CEO of Better.

Earlier this summer, Ethan P. Davis, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) delivered remarks addressing DOJ’s top priorities for enforcement actions related to COVID-19 and indicating that DOJ plans to “vigorously pursue fraud and other illegal activity.”[1] As discussed below, Davis’s remarks not only highlighted principles that will guide enforcement efforts of the Civil Fraud Section under the False Claims Act (FCA) and of the Consumer Protection Branch (CPB) under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), they also provide an indication of how DOJ might approach enforcement over the next few years.

DOJ'S KEY CONSIDERATIONS & ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY FOR COVID-19

Davis highlighted two key principles that would drive DOJ’s COVID-related enforcement efforts: the energetic use of “every enforcement tool available to prevent wrongdoers from exploiting the COVID-19 crisis” and a respect of the private sector’s critical role in ending the pandemic and restarting the economy.[2] Under that framework, DOJ plans to pursue fraud and other illegal activity under the FCA, which Davis characterizes as “one of the most effective weapons in [DOJ’s] arsenal.”[3]

However, as DOJ pursues FCA cases, it will also seek to affirmatively dismiss qui tam claims that  DOJ finds meritless or that interfere with agency policy and programs.[4] DOJ also plans to collect certain information from qui tam relators regarding third-party litigation funders during relator interviews.[5] DOJ’s emphasis on qui tam cases—cases brought under the FCA by relators or whistleblowers—for COVID-related enforcement highlights the impact such matters have on DOJ’s enforcement agenda.[6]

1. DOJ will consider dismissing cases that involve regulatory overreach and are not otherwise in the interest of the United States.

Although Davis emphasized that the majority of qui tam cases would be allowed to proceed, in order to “weed out” cases that lack merit or that DOJ believes should not proceed, DOJ will consider dismissing cases that “involve regulatory overreach or are otherwise not in the interest of the United States.”[7] This is consistent with the principles reflected in the 2018 Granston Memo that instructed DOJ attorneys to consider “whether the government’s interests are served” when considering whether cases should proceed and listed considerations for seeking alternative grounds for dismissal of FCA cases.[8] Davis gave examples throughout his speech of actions DOJ might consider dismissing:

• Cases based on immaterial or inadvertent mistakes, such as technical mistakes with paperwork
• Cases based on honest misunderstandings of rules, terms, and conditions
• Cases based on alleged deviations from non-binding guidance documents
• Cases against entities that reasonably attempted to comply with guidance and “in good faith took advantage of the regulatory flexibilities granted by federal agencies in the time of crisis.”[9]

DOJ litigators have been advised to inform relators of the possibility of dismissal.[10] Additionally, qui tam suits based on behaviors temporarily permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in circumstances in which agencies exercised discretion to waive or not enforce certain requirements, might
“fail as a matter of law for lack of materiality and knowledge.”[11]

2. DOJ will now include a series of questions during relator interviews to identify third-party litigation funders.

During each relator interview, DOJ has instructed line attorneys to ask a series of questions to identify whether the relator or their counsel has a third-party litigation funding agreement,[12] which is an agreement in which a third party—such as a commercial lender or a hedge fund—finances the cost of litigation in return for a portion of recoveries.[13] Under the new policy detailed in Davis’s speech, if a third-party funder is disclosed, DOJ will ask for the following:

• the identity of the third-party litigation funder,
• information regarding whether information of the allegations has been shared with the third party,
• whether the relator or their counsel has a written agreement with the third party, and
• whether the agreement between the relator or their counsel and the third party includes terms that entitles the third-party funder to exercise direct or indirect control over the relator’s litigation or settlement decisions.

Relators must inform DOJ of changes as the case proceeds through the course of litigation.[14] While Davis characterizes these changes as a “purely information-gathering exercise for the purpose of studying the issues,” the questions are in furtherance of DOJ’s ongoing efforts to uncover the potential negative impacts third-party litigation financing may have in qui tam actions. [15] The questions Davis referenced in his remarks reflect DOJ’s concerns with third-party litigation funding as expressed by Deputy Associate Attorney General Stephen Cox in a January 2020 speech.[16] Davis emphasized that DOJ particularly sought to evaluate the extent to which third-party litigation funders were behind qui tam cases DOJ investigates, litigates, and monitors; the extent of information sharing with third-party funders; and the amount of control third-party funders exercised over the litigation and settlement decisions.[17] While the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2019 has remained inactive since its introduction in February 2019 by Senator Grassley[18] and the 2018 proposal by the U.S. Court’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rights’ Multidistrict Litigation Subcommittee to require disclosure of third-party litigation funding remains under consideration,[19] DOJ’s plans to include this line of questioning potentially signals DOJ’s intention to take more concrete and significant steps to address third-party litigation funding in the future.

On February 11th, blockchain advocates, digital health enthusiasts, and patients received positive news from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”) regarding patient data sharing.  These rules, taken together, seek to make data more liquid, which can promote patient access, continuity of care, research, collaboration across the industry and several other activities that previously faced challenges within a health care system built on data silos.

First, CMS ...

In the tech world, blockchain technology appears to be the panacea to all problems.  As blockchain technology becomes increasingly popular, many industries are trying to determine the best way to use the new phenomenon. Healthcare is no different in this quest. Health care is an optimal candidate to benefit from development of innovative ways to solve its impending issues using transformational technology. Blockchain could be the technology that helps to alleviate some of health care’s problems, such as the incredibly fragmented delivery of care and the painstakingly slow ...

The 21^st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”) was enacted in December of 2016.  Among other things, the Cures Act includes provisions to encourage the interoperability of electronic health records. Specifically, the Cures Act provides for civil penalties for those who engage in “information blocking.”  The Cures Act defines “information blocking” broadly as a “practice that . . . is likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access, exchange or use of electronic health information” if that practice is known by a developer, exchange, network, or ...

In January 2015, CMS announced that it was considering developing voluntary clinical templates to help physicians adequately document their encounters with Medicare patients who receive home health services.[1] CMS initially proposed a sample paper template progress note and suggested clinical template elements for an electronic progress note. CMS hosted three Special Open Door Forums to solicit feedback on the proposed templates from physicians, home health agencies, and other interested stakeholders to provide feedback on the proposed templates.

On August 12, 2015, CMS ...

They say that everything is bigger in Texas, and the Lone Star State’s new privacy protection laws are no exception.  Texas House Bill 300 ("HB 300") amends the Texas Medical Records Privacy Act ("Texas Act") and takes effect on September 1, 2012.  HB 300 significantly expands patient privacy protections for Texas covered entities beyond those federal requirements as outlined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ("HITECH") Act by:

•revising the definition of a ...