Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

The 21st Century Cures Act Information-Blocking Rule

Steven M. Harris, Esq.  |  Issue: April 2021  |  April 17, 2021

Dilok Klaisataporn / shutterstock.com

Dilok Klaisataporn / shutterstock.com

The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) became law on Dec. 13, 2016, and emphasized interoperability in the exchange of healthcare information between healthcare providers, health information entities and patients. The Cures Act underscored unimpeded access to patient electronic health information (EHI) upon request, in a manner that is secure and updated automatically, and prohibits actors (i.e., healthcare providers, health information technology (IT) developers, health information networks and health information exchanges) from engaging in unreasonable or unnecessary information blocking of EHI.

On March 9, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) issued a final rule that created eight exceptions to the Cures Act information-blocking prohibition. Here, we discuss information blocking, the exceptions created by the final rule and steps providers can take to prepare for the rule’s enforcement, effective April 5, 2021.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

When Does Information Blocking Occur?

Physicians can experience information blocking when trying to access patient EHI from other providers, when connecting their electronic health record (EHR) systems to local health information exchanges or when migrating from one EHR to another. Physicians may run afoul of the information-blocking prohibition in response to a request for access, exchange or use of EHI. Physicians may also violate the information-blocking rule if they knowingly take actions that unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with access, exchange or use of EHI, even if no patient harm occurs.

Common examples of information blocking include unnecessary delays in the provision of patient test results, policies requiring staff to obtain written consent from a patient before sharing EHI with unaffiliated providers for treatment or interfering with an EHR that would generally enable EHI to be shared with other providers or patients.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Exceptions

The ONC provides eight exceptions to the information-blocking rule that may offer healthcare providers protection for certain actions in response to requests to access, exchange or use EHI. Providers must satisfy all conditions and elements of an exception or their actions may be considered information blocking subject to enforcement. Providers should note that adequate documentation is necessary to demonstrate compliance with an applicable exception.

The information-blocking exceptions are summarized below under two categories:

5 exceptions for not fulfilling requests

1. Preventing harm: Under this exception, providers are permitted to engage in practices that are reasonable and necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of harm to a patient or another person. This exception recognizes the importance of a provider’s clinical judgment relating to patient treatment to determine when, for example, patient test results and related clinical notes should be delayed based on the sensitivity of a diagnosis and the need to discuss results with a patient before giving access to the information. ONC guidance indicates that a blanket three-day delay in test results may not be appropriate under this exception; providers must make individualized patient determinations.

2. Privacy: When this exception applies, a provider does not have to fulfill a request to access, exchange or use EHI. The purpose of this exception is to protect an individual’s privacy and ensure providers don’t use or disclose EHI in a manner prohibited by state or federal privacy laws. For this exception to apply, the actor’s privacy practices must satisfy at least one of four sub-exceptions: i) a precondition to disclosure is not satisfied, such as obtaining patient consent or author­ization where required by state or federal law; ii) the actor is a developer of certified health information technology (IT) that is not required to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule; iii) the actor is permitted to deny the individual’s request for their EHI consistent with 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1) and (2) of the HIPAA Privacy Rule; or iv) the actor chooses not to provide access, exchange or use of the individual’s EHI if the individual requests the information not be shared, provided certain conditions are satisfied.

Of particular importance to healthcare providers, under the first sub-exception, an actor may choose not to provide access, exchange or use of EHI if, for example, statutorily required patient consent or authorization has not yet been given. Under the third and fourth sub-exceptions, actors may deny an individual’s request for access to EHI as permitted under 45 C.F.R. 164.524 of the HIPAA Privacy Rule or may choose not to provide access, exchange or use of EHI if the individual has requested the information not be shared.

3. Security: The security exception covers risks to the integrity and security of the EHI and the system/software in which it is stored. It is intended to cover all legitimate security practices by actors, but does not prescribe a maximum level of security or dictate a one-size-fits-all approach. The denial of access must be directly related to safeguarding the confidentiality, integrity and availability of EHI; tailored to specific security risks; and implemented in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner. Examples of when a denial would be appropriate include a situation in which there is an active or known virus or ransomware attack; the individual requesting the EHI can’t prove their identity; or the request for EHI is received from a patient-facing application or website that the actor’s system identifies as potentially malicious software.

4. Infeasibility: This exception applies when legitimate practical challenges limit the ability to comply with requests for access, exchange or use of EHI. If a provider lacks the required technology, legal rights or other means necessary to enable EHI access, exchange or use, they are not required to fulfill the request. For this exception to apply, the provider must meet one of the following conditions: i) uncontrollable events prevent the actor from fulfilling a request, including but not limited to natural disaster, public health emergency or public safety incident; ii) the actor cannot divide the requested EHI; or 3) the actor demonstrates, with a written record or documentation that certain factors led to the determination, that complying with the request is infeasible under the circumstances.

Page: 1 2 3 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:EMRsLegal UpdatesPractice Support

Related Articles

    HIPAA and PHI Cybersecurity Best Practices in the COVID-19 Era

    September 14, 2021

    When the first SARS-CoV-2 case was recorded, it was difficult to appreciate the extent to which cybersecurity concerns, particularly in connection to the protection of patient healthcare data, would enter into main­stream consciousness. Although many practices and healthcare organizations have recently adopted additional measures to safeguard patients’ protected health information (PHI) through expanded cybersecurity monitoring,…

    Department of Health and Human Services’ Final Rule Expands HIPAA Obligations, Violation Penalties

    April 1, 2013

    Physicians’ business associates can now face civil and criminal penalties for violating HIPAA laws guarding the confidentiality of protected health information

    Phase 2 of HIPAA Audit Program Launches

    May 13, 2016

    With many competing priorities facing physician practices, HIPAA compliance and security is not a topic that usually makes it to the top of the list. But this is not the case with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR), because it has initiated a new phase of audits of physician…

    Reach Beyond the Digital Walls of Your Practice

    January 1, 2010

    How much time and money do you spend trying to find information about your patients? Are you frustrated by the difficulties in obtaining patient medical records, test results, lab reports, radiology results, and insurance eligibility from organizations across state lines, down the street, or even across the hall? Do you ever order redundant tests simply because you are unable to access the results of tests ordered by another member of the care team?

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences