The Preventing Harm Exception at 45 CFR 171.201 relies on the same types of harm as apply for a covered entity to deny access to protected health information under the HIPAA Privacy Rule (see 45 CFR 164.524(a)(3)). Where an actor's practice, based on an individualized (45 CFR 171.201(c)(1)) determination of risk, is likely to interfere with a patient's or patient representative's access, exchange, or use of the patient's EHI, the type of harm (45 CFR 171.201(d)) needed for the exception to apply depends on who is seeking access to the EHI, and what EHI they are seeking to access.⁴

The table below shows the type of harm recognized under the Preventing Harm Exception for several commonly encountered patient access scenarios.¹

For more information about the Preventing Harm Exception, please reference the ONC Cures Act Final Rule preamble discussion and the other FAQs under the Preventing Harm Exception heading.

For more information about the HIPAA Privacy Rule, the Privacy Rule individual right of access, or grounds for denial of access under the Privacy Rule, please visit the Health Information Privacy section of the HHS website.

No. Unless an actor reasonably believes a practice that interferes with a parent or other legal representative’s requested access, exchange, or use of the minor’s electronic health information (EHI) will substantially reduce a risk of at least substantial harm to the patient or another person, the Preventing Harm Exception is not designed to cover that practice.

The Privacy Exception contains a sub-exception (45 CFR 171.202(e)) that covers practices respecting an individual’s request not to share information, subject to certain conditions.

Yes. The Preventing Harm Exception’s type of harm condition relies on the same types of harm that serve as grounds for reviewable denial of an individual’s right of access under the Privacy Rule (45 CFR 164.524). (See ONC Cures Act Final Rule preamble Table 3—Mapping of Circumstances Under § 171.201(d) to Applicable Harm Standards.)

In most instances, including where a practice interferes with a patient’s own or the patient’s other health care providers’ legally permissible access, exchange, or use of the patient’s electronic health information (EHI), coverage under the Preventing Harm Exception requires that the risk be of physical harm. (See 45 CFR 171.201(d)(3) and (4).)

However, the Preventing Harm Exception’s type of harm condition applies a “substantial harm” standard for practices interfering with a patient’s representative’s requested access, exchange, or use of the patient’s EHI and to the patient’s or their representative’s access to other persons’ individually identifiable information within the patient’s EHI in some circumstances. (See 45 CFR 171.201(d)(1) and (2)).

No. Blanket delays that affect a broad array of routine results do not qualify for the Preventing Harm Exception. The Preventing Harm Exception is designed to cover only those practices that are no broader than necessary to reduce a risk of harm to the patient or another person.

As we discussed in the Cures Act Final Rule, a clinician generally orders tests in the context of a clinician-patient relationship. In the context of that relationship, the clinician ordering a particular test would know the range of results that could be returned and could prospectively formulate, in the exercise of their professional judgment, an individualized determination for the specific patient that:

• withholding the results of the particular test(s) from the patient would substantially reduce a risk to the patient’s or another person’s life or physical safety
  - or -
• that withholding the results of the particular test(s) from a representative of the patient would substantially reduce a risk of substantial harm to the patient or another person.

Such individualized determinations made in good faith by an ordering clinician, in the exercise of their professional judgment and in the context of the treatment relationship within which they order the test, would satisfy the type of risk and type of harm conditions of the Preventing Harm Exception. Actors, including but not limited to the ordering clinician, could implement practices in reliance on such determinations and the Preventing Harm Exception would cover such practices so long as the practices also satisfy the other four conditions of the exception.

No. The reasonable belief condition does not include a requirement that the harm be expected to occur within a particular time period or that the likelihood of the harm be high enough to be considered “imminent.” (See 45 CFR 171.201(a)). The Preventing Harm Exception’s reasonable belief condition requires an actor engaging in a practice likely to interfere with a patient’s access, exchange, or use of their own EHI to have a reasonable belief that the practice will substantially reduce a risk to life or physical safety of the patient or another person that would otherwise arise from the affected access, exchange, or use.

Yes, where the risk of harm has been determined on an individualized basis and all other conditions of the Preventing Harm Exception are met. For example, the practice must be no broader than necessary and the actor must reasonably believe the practice will substantially reduce the risk of harm. (For all the conditions of the Preventing Harm Exception, please see 45 CFR 171.201.)

For purposes of the Preventing Harm Exception, a parent or legal guardian would be considered a patient’s legal representative. The Preventing Harm Exception’s type of harm condition applies a “substantial harm” standard for practices interfering with a patient’s representative’s requested access, exchange, or use of the patient’s EHI. (See 45 CFR 171.201(d)(1)).

The type of harm conditions for Preventing Harm Exception coverage of practices interfering with patients’ and their representatives’ access to EHI on the basis of an individualized determination of risk are specifically aligned with the HIPAA Privacy Rule’s grounds for reviewable denial of an individual’s right of access under the Privacy Rule. (See also ONC Cures Act Final Rule preamble discussion and Table 3—Mapping of Circumstances Under § 171.201(d) to Applicable Harm Standards).

The applicability date for the information blocking regulations in 45 CFR part 171 was established in the ONC Cures Act Final Rule, and was subsequently adjusted in the ONC Interim Final Rule. The Interim Final Rule moved the applicability date from November 2, 2020 to April 5, 2021.

The Interim Final Rule also revised the information blocking definition in 45 CFR 171.103 to adjust the timeframe for the “USCDI limitation.” Before October 6, 2022, electronic health information (EHI) for the purposes of the information blocking definition is limited to the EHI identified by the data elements represented in the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI) standard.

Enforcement of the information blocking regulations depends upon the individual or entity that is subject of an enforcement action or "actor." For health IT developers and health information networks/HIEs, the HHS Office of the Inspector General posted its final rule implementing information blocking penalties. For health care providers, HHS has posted its proposed rule to establish appropriate disincentives as directed by the 21^st Century Cures Act. For additional information, see the Disincentives Proposed Rule Overview fact sheet and the Disincentives Common Questions fact sheet.

Updated:

This FAQ has been updated pursuant to the HTI-1 Final Rule.

Under section 4004 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), the HHS OIG has authority to investigate any claim that health care providers, health information networks (HINs) and health information exchanges (HIEs), and health IT developers of certified health IT (collectively defined as “actors” in 45 CFR 171.102) have engaged in information blocking.

For actors HHS OIG determines have committed information blocking, enforcement consequences depend upon the actor involved.

• For health IT developers of certified health IT and HINs/HIEs (as defined in 45 CFR 171.102), the Cures Act subjects these entities to civil monetary penalties if HHS OIG determines they committed information blocking. Under the Cures Act, these penalties could be up to $1 million per violation. The HHS OIG has issued a final rule on this enforcement authority.
• For health care providers (as defined in 45 CFR 171.102) the Cures Act authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish appropriate disincentives through notice and comment rulemaking. HHS has posted a final rule to establish appropriate disincentives as directed by the 21^st Century Cures Act. For additional information, see the Disincentives Final Rule Overview fact sheet  and the Disincentives Common Questions fact sheet .  

Updated:

This FAQ has been updated pursuant to the Provider Disincentives Final Rule.

Anyone who believes they may have experienced or observed information blocking by any health care provider, health IT developer of certified health IT, or health information network or health information exchange is encouraged to share their concerns with us through the Information Blocking Portal on ONC’s website, HealthIT.gov.

Please see the other questions under this heading for more information about reporting claims of potential information blocking. For more information about applicability dates and enforcement dates for the information blocking regulations, please review the question(s) under the “Enforcement” heading.

Updated:

This FAQ has been updated to reflect that we have passed the applicability date (4/5/2021) for the information blocking regulations, and to simplify the internal reference in the final paragraph.

The Cures Act, passed by Congress in 2016, directs ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of potential information blocking, and gives the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) the responsibility of investigating any claim of potential information blocking. Once received, ONC will confirm receipt with the submitter and the report is automatically assigned a tracking number (e.g. IB-XXX). Depending on the facts and details included in the complaint, ONC may contact the submitter for additional information.

ONC has authority to review claims of potential information blocking against health IT developers of certified health IT that may constitute a non-conformity under the ONC Health IT Certification Program. Separately, OIG has authority to investigate claims of potential information blocking across all types of actors: health care providers, health information networks and health information exchanges, and health IT developers of certified health IT. Therefore, upon receiving a claim of potential information blocking, ONC shares the claim with OIG. ONC makes every effort to share these claims of information blocking within two business days of receipt. To contact OIG about a claim of potential information blocking, please use the OIG Hotline via the web at https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/index.asp or by phone at 1-800-HHS-TIPS (1-800-447-8477).  Please note that the OIG Hotline will not be able to respond to any inquiries about action taken in response to a complaint.  For more information, please see OIG’s Hotline website: https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/before-you-submit/.

For more information about applicability dates and enforcement dates for the information blocking regulations, please review the question(s) under the “Enforcement” heading.

Yes. Anyone who chooses to report their concerns through the Information Blocking Portal can choose to do so anonymously.

However, if you do submit an anonymous report, we will not be able to contact you, and you will not be able to revisit your report, to add information or clarify your concern. Therefore, it is important to ensure you include all the information that you want us to have about your concern.

In addition, as specified  in the 21^st Century Cures Act, please note that any information received by ONC in connection with a claim or suggestion of possible information blocking and that could reasonably be expected to facilitate identification of the source of the information would fall under protections in section 3022(d)(2) of the Public Health Service Act. These protections limit the public disclosure of the source of the information.