CMS Revises Policy on Texting Patient Orders

March 15, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

On February 8, 2024, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a memorandum from the Quality, Safety & Oversight Group (QSOG) updating its 2018 guidance on texting patient information among healthcare providers in hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) to permit the texting of patient orders among members of a patient’s healthcare team if certain conditions are met.1 

In its 2018 guidance, CMS stated that texting patient orders from a provider to a member of the patient’s care team would not be compliant with the Medicare Conditions of Participation2 (CoPs). CMS noted particular concerns with record retention, privacy, confidentiality, security, and system integrity. Instead, CMS required that provider orders be either handwritten into the medical record or entered through the Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) and then promptly placed into the medical record.

In updating the guidance, CMS notes that in 2018, most hospitals and CAHs did not have the ability to use secure texting platforms to incorporate orders into the medical record. CMS stated that though CPOE remains the agency’s preferred method of order entry, suitable alternatives exist, and noted that there have been significant improvements in encryption and application programming interface (API) capabilities of texting platforms to transfer data into electronic health records (EHR). 

In light of this, CMS determined that healthcare providers in hospitals and CAHs can text patient orders if accomplished through a HIPAA3-compliant, secure texting platform (STP) and in compliance with the CoPs. CMS stated it expects providers choosing to incorporate texting of patient information and orders into their EHR will use platforms that meet the requirements of the CoPs, the HIPAA Security Rule,4 and also the 2021 amendment to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 20095 (HITECH Amendment 2021). 

The hospital and CAH CoPs on medical records require, among other things, that medical inpatient and outpatient medical records be “accurately written, promptly completed, properly filed and retained, and accessible.”6 Also, the hospital must use a system of author identification and record maintenance that ensures the integrity of the authentication and protects the security of all record entries.7 The CMS memorandum specifies: “To comply with the CoPs, all providers must utilize and maintain systems/platforms that are secure and encrypted and must ensure the integrity of author identification as well as minimize the risks to patient privacy and confidentiality, as per the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) regulations.”

CMS further notes that providers using STPs should implement procedures/processes that routinely assess the security and integrity of the system or platform “to avoid negative outcomes that could compromise the care of patients.”

If you have any questions, please contact a member of the Akin health regulatory or cybersecurity, privacy and data protection teams.


1 See Center for Clinical Standards and Quality/Quality, Safety & Oversight Group (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), Texting of Patient Information and Orders for Hospitals and CAHs, Ref: QSO-24-05-Hospital/CAH, (Feb. 8, 2024) available at https://www.cms.gov/files/document/qso-24-05-hospital-cah.pdf.

2 See, e.g., 42 C.F.R. §§ 482.24 and 485.638.

3 As used here, “HIPAA” refers to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, together with their implementing regulations codified at 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 to 164.

4 In effect since 2005, the HIPAA Security Rule established national standards to protect individuals’ electronic protected health information that is created, received, maintained, or transmitted by a covered entity or business associate. At its core, the HIPAA Security Rule requires reasonable and appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and security of electronic protected health information. See 45 C.F.R. Part 160; 45 C.F.R. 164 Subparts A and C.

5 HITECH Amendment 2021 established a mechanism under which entities subject to HIPAA that voluntarily implement certain recognized security practices (RSPs) could face milder repercussions in federal enforcement actions related to HIPAA Security Rule violations, provided they can “adequately demonstrate” the RSPs were in place for at least twelve months.  See 42 U.S.C. § 17941 (emphasis added).

6 42 C.F.R. § 482.24(b).

7 See id.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Data Dive

November 19, 2024

The European Union’s AI Office published the inaugural General-Purpose AI Code of Practice on November 14, 2024. The Code is intended to assist providers of AI models in their preparations for compliance with the forthcoming EU AI Act, to be enforced from August 2, 2025. The Code is designed to be both forward-thinking and globally applicable, addressing the areas of transparency, risk evaluation, technical safeguards and governance. While adherence to the Code is not mandatory, it is anticipated to serve as a means of demonstrating compliance with the obligations under the EU AI Act. Following a consultation period that garnered approximately 430 responses, the AI Office will be empowered to apply these rules, with penalties for nonconformity potentially reaching 3% of worldwide turnover or €15 million. Three additional iterations of the Code are anticipated to be produced within the coming five months.

...

Read More

Data Dive

November 15, 2024

On October 29, 2024, the DOJ issued a proposed rule prohibiting and restricting certain transactions that could allow persons from countries of concern, such as China, access to bulk sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens or to U.S. government-related data (regardless of volume).

...

Read More

Data Dive

October 17, 2024

During the course of any lending transaction, lenders will conduct a due diligence review of the borrower, including reviewing any relevant “know-your-customer” information.

...

Read More

Data Dive

September 17, 2024

Following the publication of the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act or Act) on 12 July 2024, there are now a series of steps that various EU bodies need to take towards implementation. One of the first key steps is in relation to the establishment of codes of practice to “contribute to the proper application” of the AI Act.

...

Read More

Data Dive

August 6, 2024

On July 30, 2024, the Senate passed the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (S. 2073) via an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 91-3 shortly before departing for the August recess.

...

Read More

Data Dive

July 18, 2024

On 12 July 2024, the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act or Act) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (EU), marking the final step in the AI Act’s legislative journey. Its publication triggers the timeline for the entry into force of the myriad obligations under the AI Act, along with the deadlines we set out below. The requirement to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy of staff dealing with the operation and use of AI systems will, for example, apply to all providers and deployers on 2 February 2025.

...

Read More

Data Dive

July 18, 2024

On June 18, 2024, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a settlement with R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (RRD) for alleged internal control and disclosure failures following a ransomware attack in 2021. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the business communications and marketing services provider agreed to pay a civil penalty of over $2.1 million to settle charges alleging violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(a).1

...

Read More

Data Dive

June 11, 2024

In May, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued updated recommendations for security controls for controlled unclassified information (CUI) that is processed, stored or transmitted by nonfederal organizations using nonfederal systems, (NIST Special Publication 800-171 (SP 800-171), Revision 3). These security requirements are “intended for use by federal agencies in contractual vehicles or other agreements that are established between those agencies and nonfederal organizations.”1 While these new controls are only applicable to nonfederal entities that agree to comply with the new issuance, Revision 3 signals the next phase of expected security for government contractors.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.