CMS and OIG Propose Amendments to the Electronic Health Records Exception and Safe Harbor
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.11.13
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and Office of Inspector General-HHS (OIG) proposed amendments this week to the electronic health records Stark Law exception and Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbor. As is the case for the current exception and safe harbor requirements, CMS's and OIG's proposed changes closely parallel one another. The CMS rule may be found here; the OIG rule may be found here. The deadline for comments is June 10, 2013.
Sunset to Be Extended, But How Long?
The current exception and safe harbor each have a sunset at the end of 2013, after which EHR technology cannot be donated under those particular protections. The proposed rules each would extend the sunset to December 31, 2016. The agencies selected this date because 2016 is the last year to receive a payment under, or initiate participation in, the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. But, in the alternative, the agencies have proposed extending the sunset to the end of 2021. This latter date corresponds to the end of EHR incentive payments under the Medicaid program.
As physicians and hospitals mark their calendars, they should note that prior to and aside from the proposed sunset, Medicare reimbursement is scheduled to decrease for most physicians and hospitals if they have not achieved "Meaningful Use" under the Medicare EHR Incentive Program in 2015.
Limiting Permissible EHR Technology Donors
The agencies also suggested that they may limit the types of entities which can donate EHR technology under the exception and safe harbor. CMS and OIG raised the possibility that only hospitals, group practices, prescription drug plan sponsors, and Medicare Advantage organizations may be able to donate EHR, once the rules are finalized. That would leave out, for example, radiology centers and other providers and suppliers of ancillary services. In the current regulations, there are no limits on the donors eligible for protection. The agencies cited input OIG received, in particular, that EHR donors are using existing protections to "provide referral sources with items and services that … in practice, lead to data and referral lock-in." 78 Fed. Reg. 21318 (Apr. 10, 2013).
Other Updates
One of the requirements in the EHR exception and safe harbor is the technology must be "interoperable," which essentially means it can freely communicate with other systems, software applications, and networks. EHR technology can be deemed "interoperable" if it receives certification from a certifying body recognized by the Secretary no more than twelve months prior to the date of donation. The proposed rules would name the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology-HHS (ONC) as responsible for recognizing certifying bodies, and amend the twelve-month requirement to conform with ONC's two-year schedule for certification criteria. Finally, the proposed rules would eliminate the requirement that EHR technology have e-prescribing capability. The agencies noted wide adoption of e-prescribing, in any event, given relatively recent legislative mandates and other factors.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
