Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals (IPPS) and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Rates; Changes to the FY 2025 IPPS Rates Due to Court Decision; Requirements for Quality Programs; and Other Policy Changes; Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability: Electronic Prescribing, Real-Time Prescription Benefit and Electronic Prior Authorization s in this final rule for the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion. OMB’s SPD 15 directive provides the standards for maintaining, collecting, and presenting race and ethnicity data for all Federal information collection and reporting 425 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 2024/03/29/2024-06469/revisions-to-ombs- statistical-policy-directive-no-15-standards-for- maintaining-collecting-and. purposes. The SPD 15 standards do not require any agency or program to collect race and ethnicity data; rather they provide a common language for uniformity and comparability in the collection and use of race and ethnicity data by Federal agencies.426 Our proposed update to the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion aims to enable the electronic exchange of race and ethnicity information when performing certain prescription-related electronic transactions, and does not establish requirements for how that information may be initially collected and recorded. We are working closely with OMB and other partners on the implementation of this directive and we will revisit this and other elements of the Certification Program as needed to align with the directive. Comment: Another commenter noted tha er partners on the implementation of this directive and we will revisit this and other elements of the Certification Program as needed to align with the directive. Comment: Another commenter noted that NCPDP SCRIPT standard version 2023011, references reporting of race and ethnicity using the CDCREC 1.2 associated value set ‘‘PHVS_Race_CDC’’ version 2 (December 2018 427) and stated that this value set includes over 900 codes. The commenter recommended that ASTP/ONC instead adopt OMB’s revised race/ethnicity data policy directive that was finalized in March 2024, as it will be more feasible to implement these broader OMB race and ethnicity categories while the system gains experience using the updated standard. Response: We appreciate the commenter’s feedback. As noted by the commenter, the PHVS_Race_CDC value set is referenced in the NCPDP SCRIPT standard version 2023011 and we are requiring Health IT Modules to support exchange of race and ethnicity data consistent with this standard. Moreover, we note that this value set is not misaligned with the broader OMB categories but provides for the capability to capture more fine-grained information about race and ethnicity to better sup Moreover, we note that this value set is not misaligned with the broader OMB categories but provides for the capability to capture more fine-grained information about race and ethnicity to better support patient care. We did not propose any restriction on a health IT module to additionally supporting the OMB categories on a voluntary basis. After consideration of public comments, we are finalizing our proposal in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(B) that a Health IT Module must enable a user to exchange race and ethnicity information when performing certain prescription-related electronic transactions, if using the standard in 45 426 See https://www.federalregister.gov/ documents/2024/03/29/2024-06469/revisions-to- ombs-statistical-policy-directive-no-15-standards- for-maintaining-collecting-and. 427 See https://phinvads.cdc.gov/vads/ ViewValueSet.action?id=9152A536-AEEC-E711- ACD6-0017A477041A. CFR 170.205(b)(2) (where we adopted NCPDP SCRIPT standard version 2023011). The relevant transactions are RxFill, RxChangeRequest, RxChangeResponse, CancelRx, RxRenewalRequest, and RxRenewalResponse. We note that we have further evaluated this proposal in light of guidance released since the public ns are RxFill, RxChangeRequest, RxChangeResponse, CancelRx, RxRenewalRequest, and RxRenewalResponse. We note that we have further evaluated this proposal in light of guidance released since the publication of the HTI–2 Proposed Rule. Specifically, we have reviewed Executive Order 14151, ‘‘Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,’’ and have determined the proposal we are finalizing is not in conflict with the Executive Order. While this policy would potentially make additional data about populations available to public health agencies, this requirement for certified health IT would not mandate that users of this technology or this data take any actions identified as part of the Executive Order. (v) Base EHR Definition In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63528), given our proposal in section III.B.9.b. to include the proposed ‘‘real- time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) in the Base EHR definition in 45 CFR 170.102, we also proposed to add the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3) to the Base EHR definition. Please see section III.B.9.b. of the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63930 throug proposed to add the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3) to the Base EHR definition. Please see section III.B.9.b. of the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63930 through 63932) for further details on this proposal. Please see the ‘‘New Real-Time Prescription Benefit Criterion’’ section XI.B.4.b.(4) of the preamble of this final rule for a summarization of the public comments received to add the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3) to the Base EHR definition. As discussed in section XI.B.4.b.(4) of the preamble of this final rule, we are not finalizing this proposal, as ASTP/ONC is seeking to limit the Base EHR definition to elements of the Qualified EHR definition in PHSA section 3000 where possible. (vi) Multi-Factor Authentication In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63528), we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(G), that on and after January 1, 2028, a Health IT Module certified to 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3) must meet the multi-factor authentication requirements specified in 45 CFR 170.315(d)(13)(ii) for user-facing authentication. We stated that we believe this update is in line with industry information security bes multi-factor authentication requirements specified in 45 CFR 170.315(d)(13)(ii) for user-facing authentication. We stated that we believe this update is in line with industry information security best practice for an important authentication VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00611 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37146 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations use case in health IT, and that it is necessary to help better protect electronic health information. We referred readers to section III.B.17 of the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63574) for our proposal to revise the ‘‘multi-factor authentication’’ certification criterion 45 CFR 170.315(d)(13) and for background on the user level authentication use case targeted by this proposed requirement. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our responses: Comment: A commenter supported the proposal that after January 1, 2028, a certified health IT module must meet the multi-factor requirements specified for user-facing authentication. The commenter agreed with ASTP/ONC th supported the proposal that after January 1, 2028, a certified health IT module must meet the multi-factor requirements specified for user-facing authentication. The commenter agreed with ASTP/ONC that this update is in line with industry information security best practices and will better protect electronic health information. Response: We thank commenters for their support. Comment: Another commenter suggested that ASTP/ONC should not finalize this requirement as written. The commenter noted that electronic prescribing for controlled substances already requires multi-factor authentication according to Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations. The commenter suggested that it is unclear what ASTP/ONC is additionally proposing to require, given these protections are already in place. Response: We agree that requirements for use of this functionality are already in place and that prescribers are subject to requirements to use multi-factor authentication when electronically prescribing controlled substances. We further agree that finalizing such requirements as part of the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion is not necessary to ensure use of multi-factor authe cribing controlled substances. We further agree that finalizing such requirements as part of the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion is not necessary to ensure use of multi-factor authentication by clinicians, due to existing requirements. After consideration of public comments, we are not finalizing the proposed requirement for multi-factor authentication in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(G). In summary, after consideration of the public comments, we are finalizing the proposed update to the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii) with the following modifications: • As discussed in the preamble of this final rule, we are finalizing revisions to and a reorganization of the text of the regulation in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(A) to increase clarity regarding our timelines for the use of standards for the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion, and renumbering subsequent paragraphs. • We are finalizing revised language in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(A)(1)(i) and (A)(2)(i) requiring the use, at a minimum, of at least one of the versions the standard specified in 45 CFR 170.207(d), where we adopted multiple versions of RxNorm. • We are moving th i)(A)(1)(i) and (A)(2)(i) requiring the use, at a minimum, of at least one of the versions the standard specified in 45 CFR 170.207(d), where we adopted multiple versions of RxNorm. • We are moving the required prescription-related electronic transactions listed at 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(A)(1–9) to 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(A)(3)(i–x), and renumbering the transactions as follows: (i) New prescriptions (NewRx), (ii) Request and respond to change prescriptions (RxChangeRequest, RxChangeResponse), (iii) Request and respond to cancel prescriptions (CancelRx, CancelRxResponse), (iv) Request and respond to renew prescriptions (RxRenewalRequest, RxRenewalResponse), (v) Receive fill status notifications (RxFill), (vi) Request and receive medication history (RxHistoryRequest, RxHistoryResponse), (vii) Relay acceptance of a transaction back to the sender (Status), (viii) Respond that there was a problem with the transaction (Error), (ix) Respond that a transaction requesting a return receipt has been received (Verify), and (x) Electronic prior authorization transactions (PAInitiationRequest, PAInitiationResponse, PARequest, PAResponse, PAAppealRequest, PAAppealResponse, PACancelRequest, PAC s been received (Verify), and (x) Electronic prior authorization transactions (PAInitiationRequest, PAInitiationResponse, PARequest, PAResponse, PAAppealRequest, PAAppealResponse, PACancelRequest, PACancelResponse, and PANotification). • We are not finalizing the removal of the request and receive medication history transactions (RxHistoryRequest, RxHistoryResponse) in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(A)(6), and retaining these transactions in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(A)(3)(vi). • We are finalizing revised language regarding the requirement to transmit the diagnosis or diagnoses that are the reason for the prescription in certain transactions in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(C). • We are not finalizing the provision requiring that a Health IT Module must enable a user to enter, receive, and transmit structured and codified prescribing instructions in accordance with the standard specified in § 170.205(b)(2) proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(D), as structured and codified Sig functionality is already embedded in the NCPDP SCRIPT standard version 2023011 and we do not believe a dedicated requirement is necessary. • We are not finalizing the proposal in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(G) to reference eady embedded in the NCPDP SCRIPT standard version 2023011 and we do not believe a dedicated requirement is necessary. • We are not finalizing the proposal in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)(ii)(G) to reference the proposed ‘‘multi-factor authentication’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(d)(13) as part of the updated ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion. • We are not finalizing the proposal to add the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion to the Base EHR definition beginning on January 1, 2028. Please see the ‘‘New Real-Time Prescription Benefit Criterion’’ section XI.B.4.b.(4). of the preamble of this final rule for a summarization of the public comments received to add the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3) to the Base EHR definition. We have updated the table we originally presented in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63529) to provide a comparison of transactions identified in the existing version of the criterion based on the NCPDP SCRIPT standard version 2017071, and the updated certification criterion we are finalizing in 170.315(b)(3)(ii) based on NCPDP SCRIPT standard version 2023011. 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d d version 2017071, and the updated certification criterion we are finalizing in 170.315(b)(3)(ii) based on NCPDP SCRIPT standard version 2023011. 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00612 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37147 (4) New Real-Time Prescription Benefit Criterion (a) Background The increasing costs of prescription drugs have long been a concern for patients, providers, and policymakers.428 Increased drug costs can have several negative consequences for patients, including limited access to healthcare,429 lower healthcare use,430 medication nonadherence 431 432 and 428 A.S. Kesselheim, J. Avorn, A. Sarpatwari, The high cost of prescription drugs in the United States: origins and prospects for reform. JAMA, 316 (8) (2016), pp. 858–871. 429 Daher, Al Rifai, M., Kherallah, R.Y., Rodriguez, F., Mahtta, D., Michos, E.D., Khan, S.U., Petersen, L.A., & Virani, S.S. (2021). Gender disparities in difficulty accessing healthcare and cost-related medication non-adherence: The CDC behavioral risk ., Mahtta, D., Michos, E.D., Khan, S.U., Petersen, L.A., & Virani, S.S. (2021). Gender disparities in difficulty accessing healthcare and cost-related medication non-adherence: The CDC behavioral risk factor surveillance system (BRFSS) survey. Preventive Medicine, 153, 106779–106779. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC9291436/. 430 Roebuck, Liberman, J.N., Gemmill-Toyama, M., & Brennan, T.A. (2011). Medication adherence leads to lower health care use and costs despite increased drug spending. Health Affairs, 30(1), 91– 99. https://doi-org.ezproxyhhs.nihlibrary.nih.gov/ 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.1087. 431 SG Morgan, A. Lee. Cost-related non- adherence to prescribed medicines among older adults: a cross-sectional analysis of a survey in 11 developed countries. BMJ Open, 7 (1) (2017), Article e014287. 432 DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Patient adherence and medical financial stress, especially among underserved,433 uninsured, and underinsured 434 populations. Merely having health insurance coverage does not necessarily confer medication affordability on patients.435 These challenges continue to be the focus of legislation, such as the Inflation Reduction Act of y having health insurance coverage does not necessarily confer medication affordability on patients.435 These challenges continue to be the focus of legislation, such as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117–169, August 16, 2022), which includes several provisions that are expected to decrease prescription drug costs and improve access to prescription drugs for the more than 68 million Americans treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2002; 40 (9): 794–811. 433 Whaley C, Reed M, Hsu J, Fung V (2015) Functional Limitations, Medication Support, and Responses to Drug Costs among Medicare Beneficiaries. PLoS ONE 10(12): e0144236. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144236. 434 Collins SR, Rasmussen PW, Beutel S, Doty MM. The problem of underinsurance and how rising deductibles will make it worse: findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2014. New York: Commonwealth Fund; 2015. 435 Zhao, J., Zheng, Z., Han, X., Davidoff, A.J., Banegas, M.P., Rai, A., Jemal, A., & Yabroff, K.R. (2019). Cancer History, Health Insurance Coverage, and Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence and Medication Cost-Coping Strategies in the United States. Value in he Rai, A., Jemal, A., & Yabroff, K.R. (2019). Cancer History, Health Insurance Coverage, and Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence and Medication Cost-Coping Strategies in the United States. Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 22(7), 762–767. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.015. enrolled in the Medicare program,436 including allowing Medicare to directly negotiate prescription drug prices for the first time, eliminating cost sharing for certain adult vaccines under Part D, capping out-of-pocket costs for insulin, and capping Part D enrollee out-of- pocket spending annually starting in 2025 (see sections 11406, 11401, 1194, and 11201). E. O. 14087, Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans, directed further actions to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Research also suggests provider- patient discussions during clinical encounters about costs and affordability may lead to an overall reduction in out- of-pocket costs.437 Real-time prescription benefit tools empower providers and their patients to compare the patient-specific cost of a drug to the cost of a suitable alternative, compare prescription costs ket costs.437 Real-time prescription benefit tools empower providers and their patients to compare the patient-specific cost of a drug to the cost of a suitable alternative, compare prescription costs at different pharmacy locations, view information about out- of-pocket costs, and learn whether a specific drug is subject to utilization management restrictions such as prior authorization, step therapy, or quantity 436 See https://data.cms.gov/tools/medicare- enrollment-dashboard. 437 Carroll JK, Farah S, Fortuna RJ, et al. Addressing medication costs during primary care visits: a before-after study of team-based training. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(suppl 9): S46–S53. doi:10.7326/M18–2011. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00613 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k / > H P G 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00614 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37149 that in most cases, we expect health IT developers seek t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37149 that in most cases, we expect health IT developers seeking certification to 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) will already be certified to 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3), though there will be some variation due to the modularity of the Certification Program criteria. Accordingly, we proposed to revise 45 CFR 170.550(g) to add paragraph (g)(6) in order to require that any developer that obtains certification for the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3) must also obtain certification for the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4). While we proposed to establish this dependency with the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion, the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion is not included as part of the current Base EHR definition in 45 CFR 170.102. We noted that although electronic prescribing is a widely used and fundamental capability of health IT, we have, to date, not included this certification criterion in the Base EHR definition for several reasons. First, the Qu ectronic prescribing is a widely used and fundamental capability of health IT, we have, to date, not included this certification criterion in the Base EHR definition for several reasons. First, the Qualified EHR definition in section 3000(13) of the PHSA does not specify electronic prescribing as a required element of a Qualified EHR and we have generally sought to limit the Base EHR definition in 45 CFR 170.102, which implements the Qualified EHR definition, to those capabilities that are required for the Qualified EHR definition by statute. Second, many health care providers have historically been required to adopt certified health IT for electronic prescribing in order to meet the requirements of the Medicare EHR Incentive Programs and their successors, the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program and the MIPS Promoting Interoperability performance category. Objectives and measures for eligible professionals (now MIPS eligible clinicians 438), eligible hospitals, and CAHs under these programs have included measures related to electronic prescribing since the implementation of the Medicare EHR Incentive Programs and we have maintained such measures in their successors. Specifi hese programs have included measures related to electronic prescribing since the implementation of the Medicare EHR Incentive Programs and we have maintained such measures in their successors. Specifically, for the MIPS Promoting Interoperability performance category, section 1848(o)(2)(A)(i) of the Act requires a MIPS eligible clinician to demonstrate that they use CEHRT in a meaningful manner, which includes the use of electronic prescribing as determined appropriate by the Secretary. However, given the proposal to include the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification 438 We define this term in our regulations at 42 CFR 414.1405 for purposes of MIPS. criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) in the Base EHR definition, we stated our belief that it was also appropriate to add the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3) to the Base EHR definition. While we previously did not include this capability in the Base EHR definition for the reasons we described, we noted that we believe that the inclusion of closely related ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ functionality in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) necessitated the inclusion of electronic prescribing described, we noted that we believe that the inclusion of closely related ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ functionality in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) necessitated the inclusion of electronic prescribing functionality. We therefore proposed to include the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3) within the Base EHR definition in 45 CFR 170.102. We further proposed to specify that this criterion would be effective for the Base EHR definition on and after January 1, 2028, which aligns with the date when the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) would be effective for the Base EHR definition. We requested comment on these proposals, especially regarding the impact of these proposals on health IT developers seeking to ensure their products meet the Base EHR definition that are not currently separately certified to the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion. We sought information on the added burden to developers of requiring the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion as part of the Base EHR definition in addition to the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion. We a pers of requiring the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion as part of the Base EHR definition in addition to the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion. We also requested comment on the implications for interoperability of electronic prescribing if we were to finalize our proposal to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion within the Base EHR definition but not finalize our proposal to include the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion in the Base EHR definition. Lastly, we requested comment on the impact this proposed policy would have on any healthcare providers participating in the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program and the MIPS Promoting Interoperability performance category who have historically been able to claim an exclusion from electronic prescribing measures in these programs, and, as a result have not adopted certified health IT for electronic prescribing in order to complete the actions associated with these measures. The definitions of certified EHR technology at 42 CFR 495.4 and 42 CFR 414.1305, which define technology requirements for these programs, cross- reference the Ba ctions associated with these measures. The definitions of certified EHR technology at 42 CFR 495.4 and 42 CFR 414.1305, which define technology requirements for these programs, cross- reference the Base EHR definition at 45 CFR 171.102. Thus, we noted that as a result of the statutory change enacted by Congress, and if the HTI–2 Proposed Rule proposals to add these certification criteria to the Base EHR definition were finalized, all providers and clinicians participating in these programs would, at a minimum, have to have health IT certified to the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion and the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion. This would include participants that currently successfully participate in these programs without possessing certified health IT that supports these capabilities. We requested comment on whether finalizing these proposals would impose significant burden on these healthcare providers and clinicians. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our responses on the HTI–2 Proposed Rule and our responses: Comment: Many commenters supported our proposal to establish a ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ a summary of the comments we received and our responses on the HTI–2 Proposed Rule and our responses: Comment: Many commenters supported our proposal to establish a ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ health IT certification criterion. Commenters stated that the ability to obtain real-time information about prescription benefits improve the care experience for patients and their care teams, allow for more informed and timely decision-making, enable informed cost-related conversations during clinical encounters, reduce administrative burden for both patients and providers (for example, calls to a physician’s office when a medication is unaffordable, return trips to the clinic and/or the pharmacy), reduce care delays and patient frustration, and lead to improved medication adherence and clinical outcomes. Commenters also stated that these capabilities may benefit health plans by reducing the number of prior authorization requests from providers, and by steering providers toward recommending in-formulary, lower-cost medication options. Response: ASTP/ONC thanks commenters for their support and agrees that real-time prescription benefit technology has the potential to empower providers ing in-formulary, lower-cost medication options. Response: ASTP/ONC thanks commenters for their support and agrees that real-time prescription benefit technology has the potential to empower providers and their patients to compare the patient-specific cost of a drug to the cost of a suitable alternative, compare prescription costs at different pharmacies, view information about out-of-pocket costs, and learn whether prior authorization for a specific drug is required. Comment: Most commenters supported our proposal to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion in the Base EHR definition in 45 CFR 170.102(3)(iv). They noted that including the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion in the Base EHR definition will VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00615 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37150 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations support broader availability of certified health IT with these capabilities. Response: ASTP/ONC thanks commenters for their support. Comment: Some commenters op August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations support broader availability of certified health IT with these capabilities. Response: ASTP/ONC thanks commenters for their support. Comment: Some commenters opposed including the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition at this time. Commenters stated that requiring technology that is not fully ready could increase burden on physicians. A commenter preferred for the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion to not be required as part of the Base EHR definition as the industry continues to improve on the technology. A commenter thought it was not necessary to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition because the availability of the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion would be sufficient to ensure adoption of this capability. Response: ASTP/ONC thanks the commenters for their concerns regarding the inclusion of the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition in 45 CFR 170.102. While we recognize these concerns, we proposed to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition in order to fulfill the he Base EHR definition in 45 CFR 170.102. While we recognize these concerns, we proposed to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition in order to fulfill the statutory requirements of section 119(b)(3) of the CAA, 2021 (Pub. L. 116– 260), which added RTBT functionality to the definition of a qualified EHR in section 3000 of the PHSA. We also note that RTBTs are already widely implemented across US provider organizations and practices, with about two-thirds of hospitals reporting access to an RTBT.439 Given this degree of adoption, we anticipate that many physicians would not notice a change in their practice or workflow as a result of including the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition. Comment: Many commenters supported our proposal to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition as of January 1, 2028. Commenters stated this date would allow payers, developers, and providers time to prepare, thus ensuring a smoother and more effective implementation. Some commenters supported this proposal due to the fact that it is a year after the compliance date of January 1, 2027, ers time to prepare, thus ensuring a smoother and more effective implementation. Some commenters supported this proposal due to the fact that it is a year after the compliance date of January 1, 2027, finalized by CMS for Part D plan sponsors to establish an RTBT that meets NCPDP standard version 13. Commenters stated that this staggering of dates will allow health IT developers to more effectively develop Health IT 439 See https://www.healthit.gov/data/quickstats/ hospital-adoption-real-time-benefit-tools. Modules based on real-world implementations by Part D plan sponsors. Response: ASTP/ONC thanks the commenters for their support. We agree with commenters regarding the benefits of the proposed date of January 1, 2028, for including the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition. The proposed date for inclusion in the Base EHR definition of January 1, 2028 would provide a window of more than 24 months from the publication of this final rule for health IT developers to make Health IT Modules certified to the criterion at 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) available to their customers in order to meet the Base EHR definition. ASTP/ONC agrees that staggered compliance developers to make Health IT Modules certified to the criterion at 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) available to their customers in order to meet the Base EHR definition. ASTP/ONC agrees that staggered compliance dates would provide more opportunities for developers to test Health IT Modules against standard-compliant RTBTs implemented by Part D plan sponsors prior to release, thus ensuring that Health IT Modules are able to successfully interact with the technology implemented by Part D plan sponsors. Comment: Some commenters supported aligning the effective date of the Base EHR definition revision with the January 1, 2027, compliance date by which Part D plan sponsors must implement RTBTs compliant with NCPDP RTPB standard version 13. Commenters expressed concern that if the dates are not aligned, there may be challenges in implementation, increased administrative burden, or negative consequences for the quality and cost of healthcare. Some commenters requested clarification on whether the deadline finalized by CMS for Part D plan sponsors applies universally or if there are specific exemptions. Response: ASTP/ONC appreciates this feedback. We acknowledge the discrepancy between the date we ine finalized by CMS for Part D plan sponsors applies universally or if there are specific exemptions. Response: ASTP/ONC appreciates this feedback. We acknowledge the discrepancy between the date we proposed for the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion to be included in the Base EHR definition and the deadline for Part D sponsors to offer an RTBT conformant with the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13. However, we do not believe this discrepancy will result in significant challenges for health care providers using certified health IT. While health care providers may use health IT that includes RTBTs as part of their participation in certain federal programs, we note that there is currently no HHS requirement for health care providers to use RTBTs as part of care delivery; for instance, there is no associated measure specifying the use of RTBTs in the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program or the MIPS Promoting Interoperability performance category. Thus, health care providers will not face additional penalties if their health IT developer does not provide a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real- time prescription benefit’’ criterion prior to the deadline for inclusion o will not face additional penalties if their health IT developer does not provide a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real- time prescription benefit’’ criterion prior to the deadline for inclusion of the criterion in the Base EHR definition. We further note that health IT developers may certify to the criterion beginning as soon as the testing tools are available subsequent to the effective date of this final rule. They are not required to wait until January 1, 2028, to update certified technology and provide it to their customers. In addition, health IT developers that already incorporate RTBTs or provide access to RTBTs may work with payers and other intermediaries to complete any updates necessary to ensure seamless access to existing tools. Regarding the commenters’ question about the applicability of the deadline CMS has finalized for payer RTBTs to conform to NCPDP RTPB standard version 13, we note that CMS finalized in 42 CFR 423.160(b)(5) that beginning January 1, 2027, Part D sponsors’ RTBT must comply with a standard in 45 CFR 170.205(c) (where we adopted the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13). This deadline is specific to the requirements for RTBTs established by Part D p D sponsors’ RTBT must comply with a standard in 45 CFR 170.205(c) (where we adopted the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13). This deadline is specific to the requirements for RTBTs established by Part D plan sponsors. Comment: A few commenters noted that ASTP should ensure that the requirements in this proposed rule are consistent with the requirements finalized for Part D plan sponsors in the Part D and Health IT Standards Final Rule. Response: We appreciate commenters’ input on the intersection between this final rule and regulations for Part D plan sponsors. We agree that HHS should support consistency across regulations, and we have worked closely with CMS to ensure our regulations are complementary. For instance, our adoption of the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 in 45 CFR 170.205(c) is cross- referenced by CMS in 42 CFR 423.160(b)(5). Comment: Several commenters requested the adoption of a complementary ‘‘role-based’’ certification criterion focused on the health IT used by payers to participate in RTBT workflows. Commenters stated that without this foundation, developers and healthcare providers are at risk of spending time and money on functionality that provides little value. participate in RTBT workflows. Commenters stated that without this foundation, developers and healthcare providers are at risk of spending time and money on functionality that provides little value. These commenters requested that ASTP work with CMS to develop separate ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion for providers and payers, similar to the approach for electronic prior authorization transactions VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00616 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37151 proposed in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule. A few commenters recommended only including the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition once a corresponding ‘‘role- based’’ criterion for technology used by payers has been adopted and successfully implemented. They argued that without a role-based criterion, developers and providers might invest in functionality that does not get fully utilized or might not be ready to contribute to the system’s functionality. Response: We appreciate the su sed criterion, developers and providers might invest in functionality that does not get fully utilized or might not be ready to contribute to the system’s functionality. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to adopt a complementary ‘‘role-based’’ certification criterion for payer health IT used to support RTBTs. We have collaborated closely with CMS to advance alignment between regulations impacting Part D plan sponsors and our regulations for health IT developers participating in the Certification Program. Through that collaboration, ASTP/ONC adopted the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 in a joint rulemaking in which CMS finalized a cross-reference that includes this standard in its requirements for Part D plan sponsors (42 CFR 423.160(b)(5)). ASTP/ONC subsequently proposed to incorporate this standard within the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion. ASTP/ONC did not propose a certification criterion focused on health IT used by Part D plan sponsors, so finalizing a ‘‘role-based’’ certification criterion for payers would be out of scope for this final rule. However, we believe that requiring RTBTs established by Part D plan sponsors and certified Health IT Modules to adher ed’’ certification criterion for payers would be out of scope for this final rule. However, we believe that requiring RTBTs established by Part D plan sponsors and certified Health IT Modules to adhere to the same implementation specification (NCPDP RTPB standard) will ensure a substantial degree of interoperability between provider and health plan systems, in the absence of certification of technology used by Part D plan sponsors. While we may explore with CMS whether the availability of a ‘‘role- based’’ certification criterion would provide additional benefits in the future, we believe the degree of interoperability that can be achieved under the current and proposed regulatory approach will provide value to health care providers and patients and implementation based on inclusion in the Base EHR definition should not be delayed further. We also appreciate the comment that ‘‘role-based’’ certification criteria would ensure that developers and providers are investing in functionality that can be fully utilized by all parties. However, even without a ‘‘role-based’’ certification criterion for payers at this time, we believe it is necessary to include the ‘‘real-time prescription be that can be fully utilized by all parties. However, even without a ‘‘role-based’’ certification criterion for payers at this time, we believe it is necessary to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition in order to fulfill the statutory requirements of section 119(b)(3) of the CAA, 2021 (Pub. L. 116–260), which added RTBT functionality to the definition of a qualified EHR in section 3000 of the PHSA. Comment: Many commenters supported our proposal to add the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion to the Base EHR definition, noting that electronic prescribing reduces administrative burden for clinicians and pharmacists and improves medication adherence for patients. A commenter recommended including the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition, without the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion. Response: We thank commenters for their support. We agree that electronic prescribing reduces administrative burden for clinicians and pharmacists and can improve medication adherence for patients among other benefits. We have advanced certification criteria for electronic prescribing for more than a decade an rden for clinicians and pharmacists and can improve medication adherence for patients among other benefits. We have advanced certification criteria for electronic prescribing for more than a decade and have updated our criteria to maintain conformance to the latest available standards. However, given the near universal adoption of the criterion and the baseline requirements under CMS programs, we believe that adding the criterion to the Base EHR definition creates administrative burden on developers in the certification process without adding benefit to providers, pharmacies, or patients. In order to avoid unnecessary developer burden, which might be passed on to users in higher costs, we are not finalizing the inclusion of the criterion in the Base EHR definition. Regarding the recommendation to include the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion in the Base EHR definition but not the ‘‘real- time prescription benefit’’ criterion, we note that we believe it is necessary to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in order to ensure that the Base EHR definition is aligned with the requirements of a qualified EHR in PHSA section 3000, as amended by section 119(b)(3) of real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in order to ensure that the Base EHR definition is aligned with the requirements of a qualified EHR in PHSA section 3000, as amended by section 119(b)(3) of the CAA, 2021. Comment: A commenter did not believe there was a need for electronic prescribing to be added to the Base EHR definition because electronic prescribing is already widely adopted as a criterion. Adding this criterion to the Base EHR definition will add work for developers without being of much benefit to users. Response: We agree with commenters that electronic prescribing functionality has reached a high level of adoption and is unlikely to further benefit from being included in the Base EHR definition. We had proposed to add the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion to the Base EHR due to its close intersection with the functionality in ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion which we are finalizing in this rule. However, we believe the benefits for doing so are limited. In addition, we believe it is preferable to limit the criteria referenced in the Base EHR definition to those criteria required under the qualified EHR definition in section 3000 of the PHSA where po In addition, we believe it is preferable to limit the criteria referenced in the Base EHR definition to those criteria required under the qualified EHR definition in section 3000 of the PHSA where possible. Comment: Several commenters noted the importance of minimizing the burden of RTBTs on clinicians and healthcare organizations. They recommended that EHR vendors integrate this new criterion with minimal disruption to EHR usability. They also recommended that developers prioritize clinical efficiency and minimizing potential alert fatigue when developing and implementing RTBTs. Another commenter expressed concern that the higher performance capacities needed may create challenges for smaller, rural practices with poor broadband capabilities, resulting in computer screens freezing, slow response times to data entry, and interruptions for the entire clinical practice team. They requested that ASTP work with CMS to establish flexibilities for these practices. Response: We appreciate commenters’ concerns with the potential workflow implications of these capabilities and effects these capabilities may have on EHR products. As part of the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ cr mmenters’ concerns with the potential workflow implications of these capabilities and effects these capabilities may have on EHR products. As part of the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion, we did not address issues related to design, usability, or alert burden as certification to this capability is new to the Certification Program and we do not yet have information about how we should incorporate these elements into the criterion. ASTP/ONC welcomes further input from the public about these topics and may consider them in future rulemaking. ASTP/ONC recognizes that RTPB transactions may be impacted by broadband challenges that generally impact information exchange, and that such issues may disproportionately impact healthcare providers in rural areas. Regarding the commenter’s request that ASTP/ONC work with CMS to establish flexibilities for these providers, we note that for the MIPS Promoting Interoperability performance category, CMS has established flexibilities that may apply to rural providers at 42 CFR 414.1380(c)(2), such as flexibilities that apply to small practices defined in 42 CFR 414.1305 as further specified at 42 CFR 414.1380(c)(2)(i)(C)(9). Addit that may apply to rural providers at 42 CFR 414.1380(c)(2), such as flexibilities that apply to small practices defined in 42 CFR 414.1305 as further specified at 42 CFR 414.1380(c)(2)(i)(C)(9). Additionally, we VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00617 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37152 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations encourage developers to implement Health IT Modules certified to the ‘‘real- time prescription benefit’’ criterion in a manner that gives provider organizations the flexibility to decide how frequently RTBT alerts should be triggered. Providers in areas with poor broadband capabilities could then limit the frequency of these alerts (for example, only when potential cost savings are substantial). Comment: Several commenters emphasized the importance of making RTBTs available at no cost to healthcare organizations. A commenter cautioned that RTBTs should not be an option in the EHR but should rather be a required feature, because EHR vendors might then charge healthcare organizations to add the RTBT option, th . A commenter cautioned that RTBTs should not be an option in the EHR but should rather be a required feature, because EHR vendors might then charge healthcare organizations to add the RTBT option, thus shifting the financial burden of RTBT development and adherence to the NCPDP RTPB standard to providers. Response: We acknowledge that adopting Health IT Modules certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion may have associated costs for providers and provider organizations. We expect that health IT developers seeking to offer health IT products that meet the Base EHR definition, where we proposed to include the real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion’’ would include this criterion in future offerings. However, we note that the ONC Health IT Certification Program is voluntary, and ASTP/ONC does not have the authority to direct health IT developers to include certain certified health IT capabilities in their products. We note that health IT developers that include Health IT Modules on the Certified Health IT Product List must publicly describe certain information about cost structure and included elements of their products, which may be helpful to customers. Commen th IT Modules on the Certified Health IT Product List must publicly describe certain information about cost structure and included elements of their products, which may be helpful to customers. Comment: Several commenters recommended that ASTP/ONC take steps to ensure that the information displayed to users in the EHR is accurate and consistent with patient- facing RTBT systems that are available through some plans, as well as cost estimates available to pharmacists working at retail pharmacies. These commenters note that inaccurate information could reduce the utility of this technology and increase burden for clinicians. They recommend that: (1) cost estimates come directly from the payer, rather than from representative data created by third parties that are not connected to payer data and that might include averaged claims data; and (2) EHR vendors create a structure to ensure the accuracy of information. Response: We agree with the commenters about the importance of prioritizing accuracy of the RTBT information delivered to healthcare providers. We recognize that clinicians have previously expressed concerns about the accuracy of RTBT cost estimates, though we do not have furt ccuracy of the RTBT information delivered to healthcare providers. We recognize that clinicians have previously expressed concerns about the accuracy of RTBT cost estimates, though we do not have further information about the extent of accuracy issues of RTBT cost estimates. We understand that if clinicians cannot trust this information, then they are less likely to use RTBTs in clinical practice. We will continue to explore these issues in collaboration with CMS, which sets requirements for Part D plan sponsors to implement RTBTs. Comment: A commenter requested ASTP/ONC establish a standard process for including new criteria in the Base EHR Definition that would progress from modular criterion without inclusion in the Base EHR Definition to addition to Base EHR Definition depending on developers’ ability to meet the criterion and market demand. A commenter expressed concern that adding several new items to the Base EHR definition at once may increase the burden on physicians and risk driving consolidation in the EHR market. Response: ASTP/ONC appreciates this suggestion, however, we note that we did not propose the creation of a standard process for including new criterion in the driving consolidation in the EHR market. Response: ASTP/ONC appreciates this suggestion, however, we note that we did not propose the creation of a standard process for including new criterion in the Base EHR definition in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule and such a process is out of scope for this final rule. We may consider this suggestion as we explore updates to the Base EHR definition in future notice-and-comment rulemaking. We appreciate these concerns regarding the effect of adding items to the Base EHR definition. We agree that it is important to consider factors such as provider burden and impact on the market for health IT products when determining whether to add items to the Base EHR definition. We must balance these considerations with both the need to align the Base EHR definition with the elements of the qualified EHR definition in section 3000 of the PHSA and potential benefits from increasing the availability of certain certified Health IT Modules through additions to the Base EHR definition. After consideration of public comments, we are finalizing to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ health IT certification criterion (45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)) in the Base EHR defi HR definition. After consideration of public comments, we are finalizing to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ health IT certification criterion (45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)) in the Base EHR definition in 45 CFR 170.102(3)(iv). We are further finalizing in 45 CFR 170.102(3)(iv) to include the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion the Base EHR definition as of January 1, 2028. We are not finalizing our proposal to add the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion (45 CFR 170.315(b)(3)) to the Base EHR definition. We note that we did not receive any comments on our proposal in 45 CFR 170.550(g)(6) to require that a developer that obtains certification for the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3) must also obtain certification for the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4), and we are finalizing as proposed. (c) Real-Time Prescription Benefit Standard In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i) that a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion must enable a user to perform certain real-time prescription benefit electronic transacti 5(b)(4)(i) that a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion must enable a user to perform certain real-time prescription benefit electronic transactions in accordance with at least one of the versions of the standard adopted in 45 CFR 170.205(c). Under this paragraph, ONC adopted the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 440 on behalf of HHS in 45 CFR 170.205(c)(1) in the Part D and Health IT Standards Final Rule, which appeared in the Federal Register on June 17, 2024 (89 FR 51238 through 51265). We stated in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63532) that if we adopt subsequent versions of the NCPDP RTPB standard in 45 CFR 170.205(c), we believe our proposal to require the use of at least one of the versions of the standard adopted in 45 CFR 170.205(c) would enable health IT developers to use any version of the standard adopted under this paragraph, unless we specify an adoption ‘‘expiration’’ date which indicates a certain version of the standard may no longer be used after that date. The NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 enables the exchange of patient eligibility, product coverage, and benefit financials for a chosen product and pharmacy, an rd may no longer be used after that date. The NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 enables the exchange of patient eligibility, product coverage, and benefit financials for a chosen product and pharmacy, and identifies coverage restrictions and alternatives when they exist. The benefits of the more recent NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 relative to NCPDP RTPB standard version 12 include improvements to the NCPDP RTPB Patient Segment, Product and Alternative Product Segments, and new elements, new values, and updated values to the schema, as well as administrative corrections that support consistency and clarity. Because the NCPDP RTPB standard is relatively new and not yet widely implemented, we stated that we expect additional enhancements and improvements to the standard over time as more health IT developers adopt and implement the standard and more 440 See https://standards.ncpdp.org/Access-to- Standards.aspx. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00618 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37153 exchange 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37153 exchange partners engage in the standards development process with NCPDP. We also stated that we encourage developers to remain familiar with updates occurring in newer versions of the NCPDP RTPB standard. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our responses: Comment: Many commenters supported our proposal to require use of the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 for certification to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion. Commenters believed that adoption of the standard would lead to wider adoption and increased utilization of RTBTs. Response: ASTP/ONC thanks the commenters for their support. Comment: A commenter encouraged ASTP/ONC to monitor for developments in the RTPB standard and explore requiring the most up-to-date and relevant features when available. Response: ASTP/ONC recognizes the importance of implementers’ ability to utilize improved versions of the standards we require for use in the Certification Program. We also understand that the regu e. Response: ASTP/ONC recognizes the importance of implementers’ ability to utilize improved versions of the standards we require for use in the Certification Program. We also understand that the regulatory process can be lengthy and may delay the adoption of updated standards requirements in a timely fashion. We continue to monitor updates to standards including the NCPDP RTPB standard, as well as receiving input from the public and through bodies such as the Health IT Standards Advisory Committee on updated versions of standards recommended for adoption in regulation. We also note that we have implemented measures under the Certification Program providing added flexibility for implementers, such as the Standards Version Advancement Process (SVAP). SVAP permits health IT developers to voluntarily update health IT products certified under the Certification Program to newer versions of adopted standards as part of real world testing Condition and Maintenance of Certification requirements under the Certification Program in 45 CFR 170.405. Comment: A commenter expressed concerns regarding the applicability of NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 in long-term care settings. Response: We note s under the Certification Program in 45 CFR 170.405. Comment: A commenter expressed concerns regarding the applicability of NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 in long-term care settings. Response: We note the commenter’s concerns and will work with interested parties to ensure that standards continue to evolve to support all care settings, including long-term care and post-acute care facilities. After consideration of public comments, we are finalizing our proposal in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i) to require that a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion enable a user to perform specified transactions in accordance with at least one of the versions of the standards adopted in 45 CFR 170.205(c) (where we adopted NCPDP RTPB standard version 13). We clarify that under the final version of the criterion, only a version of the standard in 45 CFR 170.205(c) that is not expired would be allowed for the conformance with the certification criterion. (d) Sending and Receiving Real-Time Prescription Benefit Information In order to execute real-time prescription benefit checks in accordance with the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13, a provider originate ) Sending and Receiving Real-Time Prescription Benefit Information In order to execute real-time prescription benefit checks in accordance with the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13, a provider originates the request for prescription benefit information for a specific patient from within their health IT. In return, a processor, pharmacy benefit manager, or adjudicator provides the appropriate response. In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63532), we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i) that a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion must enable a user to perform specified transactions in accordance with at least one of the versions of the standard adopted in 45 CFR 170.205(c) (where we adopted NCPDP RTPB standard version 13), as well as one of the versions of the standard in 45 CFR 170.207(d)(1) (where we adopted RxNorm) and the standard in 45 CFR 170.207(d)(2) (where we have cross-referenced National Drug Codes (NDC)). We proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(A) that a Health IT Module certified to the proposed criterion must enable a user to request patient-specific prescription benefit information, estimated cost information, and therapeutic alternat (i)(A) that a Health IT Module certified to the proposed criterion must enable a user to request patient-specific prescription benefit information, estimated cost information, and therapeutic alternatives, in accordance with the RTPBRequest transaction. We proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(B) that a Health IT Module certified to the proposed criterion must enable a user to receive patient-specific prescription benefit information, estimated cost information, and therapeutic alternatives in response to a request, in accordance with the RTPBResponse transaction. RTPBRequest and RTPBResponse transactions are determined by patient, benefit, and product-specific information. Each request and response are unique with information conditioned on factors associated with each transaction. We noted that Health IT Modules certified to the proposed certification criterion should support transaction segments and associated data elements necessary to reflect both the information needed for a successful RTPBRequest and the information contained in a detailed RTPBResponse. As such, a Health IT Module must have the capability to send and receive both mandatory and situational transaction segments sful RTPBRequest and the information contained in a detailed RTPBResponse. As such, a Health IT Module must have the capability to send and receive both mandatory and situational transaction segments and associated data elements for RTPBRequests and RTPBResponse transactions as specified in NCPDP RTPB standard version 13. Finally, we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(C) that a Health IT Module certified to the proposed criterion must enable a user to be notified of errors when there is a problem with a real-time prescription benefit transaction, in accordance with the RTPBError transaction. We requested comments on these proposals and whether we should consider other capabilities for the certification criterion in the future. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our responses: Comment: A commenter noted the limitations of RxNorm and cautioned against its use. The commenter cautioned that using RxNorm may lead to inaccuracies in formulary and benefit information presented by RTBTs, because (1) some medications that are actively in the pharmacy supply chain are erroneously listed as ‘‘archived’’ (that is, no longer in supply) in the RxNorm lexicon and so may b presented by RTBTs, because (1) some medications that are actively in the pharmacy supply chain are erroneously listed as ‘‘archived’’ (that is, no longer in supply) in the RxNorm lexicon and so may be listed as not covered by the RTBT; (2) it is not clear how frequently the RxNorm lexicon is updated when new medications enter the market; and (3) conversion between other medication lexicons used by insurers and pharmacies (for example, RxCUI and NDC) is imperfect. For example, the commenter noted that if an insurer uses RxCUI to place medication A in tier 1 and medication B in tier 2, an imperfect conversion may lead an RTBT to list both medication A and medication B in tier 1. The commenter cautioned that these problems may create inaccuracies in cost estimations, data quality checks, and formulary lookup databases. The commenter suggested more extensive testing of RxNorm lexicon conversions to ensure that they are accurate. Response: ASTP/ONC appreciates the inputs provided regarding the challenges associated with the use of RxNorm. We recognize that instances may occur where RTBTs present inaccurate cost estimates or coverage information due to these issues and that such occurre the challenges associated with the use of RxNorm. We recognize that instances may occur where RTBTs present inaccurate cost estimates or coverage information due to these issues and that such occurrences could lead to discouraging experiences. We encourage further testing of the accuracy of the RxNorm lexicon as well as the NDC- RxCUI conversion and may explore ways to advance further progress in this area. Despite these issues, these standards are necessary components of the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00619 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37154 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations criterion and are widely adopted across the health IT industry. For example, RxNorm codes are used by Health IT Modules certified to the ‘‘electronic prescribing’’ criterion at 45 CFR 170.315(b)(3), and are deployed across the majority of hospitals and office physicians in the US. Comment: A commenter requested clarification on whether the ‘‘estimate cost information’’ referenced in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(A) yed across the majority of hospitals and office physicians in the US. Comment: A commenter requested clarification on whether the ‘‘estimate cost information’’ referenced in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(A) and (i)(B) pertains to patient out-of-pocket costs, overall plan costs, or both. Response: The estimated cost information referred to in the proposed language related to the RTPBRequest and RTPBResponse transactions only pertains to patient out-of-pocket costs. Prescribers using RTBTs that use NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 also have the capability to request and receive information on overall costs (field names are ‘‘estimated net plan cost’’ and ‘‘estimated combined plan and patient savings’’) but only when allowed and provided by the plan. Comment: A commenter discussed the term ‘‘therapeutic alternative’’ used in the proposed language in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(A), (i)(B), and (ii). The commenter requested this term be expanded or a definition added clarifying that it is inclusive of ‘‘clinically equivalent therapeutic alternatives.’’ The commenter stated that it was important to convey that ‘‘therapeutic alternatives’’ should not only be similar in terms of therapeutic effects, b ‘‘clinically equivalent therapeutic alternatives.’’ The commenter stated that it was important to convey that ‘‘therapeutic alternatives’’ should not only be similar in terms of therapeutic effects, but also considered interchangeable based on clinical guidelines and patient needs. Response: We respectfully disagree with the recommendation to clarify that the term ‘‘therapeutic alternative’’ is inclusive of the term ‘‘clinically equivalent therapeutic alternative.’’ Therapeutic alternatives are suggested based on the rules outlined by a PBM, responding organization, or their third- party drug compendia. Therefore, a medication identified as a therapeutic alternative may produce a similar therapeutic response, but not be equivalent based on pharmaceutical active ingredient, dosage form, route of administration or safety profiles. We further note that the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 uses the terminology ‘‘alternative product,’’ which is more inclusive of medications and other products. We believe that using this term, instead of the proposed term ‘‘therapeutic alternative.’’ In order to provide additional consistency between our regulation text and the language used in the NCPDP R . We believe that using this term, instead of the proposed term ‘‘therapeutic alternative.’’ In order to provide additional consistency between our regulation text and the language used in the NCPDP RTPB standard we are finalizing a modification of the term ‘‘therapeutic alternative’’ as proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(A) and (B) to ‘‘alternative product.’’ Comment: Several commenters noted that the NCPDP RTPB Standard Version 13 does not contain an RTPBError transaction, as referenced in proposed 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(C). Instead, the name of the transaction for a plan to notify a prescriber that a system error occurred is ‘‘Error.’’ Some commenters also noted that errors are flagged when RTPBResponse is returned as a reject code and recommended not requiring the ‘‘Error’’ transaction as part of the certification criterion. A commenter stated that displaying the Error transaction to end-users would be inappropriate since end-users cannot resolve errors and displaying this information could contribute to alert fatigue. The commenter recommended making the error transaction only available to system administrators. Response: ASTP/ONC appreciates commenters’ concerns with our pr ation could contribute to alert fatigue. The commenter recommended making the error transaction only available to system administrators. Response: ASTP/ONC appreciates commenters’ concerns with our proposal to require a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion enable a user to be notified of errors when there is a problem with a real-time prescription benefit transaction. We also acknowledge that we inadvertently referred to an ‘‘RTPBError’’ transaction within NCPDP RTPB standard version 13. We further agree with commenters that it is not necessary to finalize a separate requirement related to this capability within the certification criterion. Health IT developers that implement the transactions in the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 we have specified would already be implementing the capability to receive a reject code—also called ‘‘Error’’ as noted by the commenter—in response to the RTPBRequest transaction as part of fully implementing the requirements in NCPDP RTPB standard version 13. We also agree with commenters that it would be more appropriate for health IT developers to determine how errors are received or presented by a Health IT Mod rements in NCPDP RTPB standard version 13. We also agree with commenters that it would be more appropriate for health IT developers to determine how errors are received or presented by a Health IT Module, which will allow developers to determine what is most useful for their customers. Comment: A commenter disagreed with the statement in the proposed rule that a Health IT Module be capable of sending and receiving all situational segments and data elements specified in NCPDP RTPB standard version 13. The commenter noted that the standard states that ‘‘situational or optional fields and segments may be added to or deleted from the transmission as necessary to accommodate changing needs’’ and that health IT developers should have flexibility in how, when, and what to display to users based on feedback from those users on what is most valuable. Response: We thank the commenter for their concerns. In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule, we stated that a Health IT Module must have the capability to send and receive both mandatory and situational transaction segments and associated data elements for RTPBRequest and RTPBResponse transactions (89 FR 63532). This statement was intended to convey that h d and receive both mandatory and situational transaction segments and associated data elements for RTPBRequest and RTPBResponse transactions (89 FR 63532). This statement was intended to convey that health IT developers must implement products that are able to transmit information in segments with these designations, consistent with the required implementation of NCPDP RTPB standard version 13. The NCPDP RTPB standard provides additional details on which situations require which situational fields for each transaction type. This statement was not intended to require specific expectations related to how, when, or what to display to users. We also note that we did not propose requirements to support optional field segments. Comment: Commenters provided a number of additional recommendations related to the proposals in this section. Several commenters suggested incorporating standards that would provide clinicians and patients with information on availability of ordered medications at the selected pharmacy (that is, on their formulary, in stock, time to delivery or pick-up) to prevent delays in access to medications. Other commenters suggested considering additional standards that wou selected pharmacy (that is, on their formulary, in stock, time to delivery or pick-up) to prevent delays in access to medications. Other commenters suggested considering additional standards that would facilitate visibility into potential cost savings attributable to drug discount programs. Several commenters requested consideration of real-time price transparency capabilities for other types of care in the future, including medications covered under the medical benefit. Finally, a commenter recommended making data from real- time benefit transactions accessible to third party clinical decision support tools that could then configure their medication recommendations to take cost and coverage into account or eventually integrate such information and display it alongside a clinical decision support recommendation. Another commenter requested that ASTP/ONC implement protections to prevent the use of data submitted or received as part of real-time prescription benefit activities for purposes besides electronic prescribing or to monetize the data. Response: ASTP/ONC thanks commenters for their additional recommendations to improve RTBT functionality. Regarding availability of VerDate S ses besides electronic prescribing or to monetize the data. Response: ASTP/ONC thanks commenters for their additional recommendations to improve RTBT functionality. Regarding availability of VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00620 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37155 ordered medications at the selected pharmacy, we note that standards development organizations are currently pursuing activities in this area and invite commenters to learn more about these initiatives. Regarding incorporation of out-of-pocket cost information related to drug discount programs, we agree incorporation of this information could provide additional price transparency and additional opportunities for cost savings for patients. We will continue to monitor developments to support queries to all drug discount programs. Regarding transparency for medications under a medical benefit, we note that while prescription medications are often one of the most expensive aspects of patient care, patients could also benefit from ac rding transparency for medications under a medical benefit, we note that while prescription medications are often one of the most expensive aspects of patient care, patients could also benefit from access to easily accessible, real-time cost estimates for other aspects of their care (for example, procedures, imaging, laboratory tests, and medications covered under Part B) and we will work with partners across HHS on efforts to address these capabilities through future rulemaking and other initiatives. Finally, we appreciate the comments about the benefits of making RTBT data accessible to third-party clinical decision support tools. The recommendations made by RTBTs for lower-cost alternatives are currently based on insurer formularies and preferred pharmacies, without accounting for other clinically important information. For example, if a clinician prescribes an antidepressant that is not preferred on a patient’s insurance formulary, the RTBT’s recommendations for alternatives in the same therapeutic class will not account for medications that the patient has previously tried and failed, or the possibility of interactions with other medications the patient is currently prescribed same therapeutic class will not account for medications that the patient has previously tried and failed, or the possibility of interactions with other medications the patient is currently prescribed. We appreciate commenters’ concerns about data privacy and will continue to closely monitor public feedback and developments in data privacy in collaboration with other HHS partners, including OCR. Comment: A commenter requested that ASTP/ONC clarify expectations for the amount of time it should take for queried information to be returned. Response: Given the time pressures on clinicians, we agree that it is important for queried information to be returned promptly. The amount of time it takes for queried information to be returned may be based on a number of factors, including the systems of the Part D sponsor, PBM, or other third-party vendor providing the information, as well as local broadband capabilities. We recognize that health IT developers have limited ability to control these factors as part of certified Health IT Modules, but we encourage developers to consider features that can mitigate the impact of variable response times on users’ experience. Comment: A commenter expre actors as part of certified Health IT Modules, but we encourage developers to consider features that can mitigate the impact of variable response times on users’ experience. Comment: A commenter expressed concern that one potential unintended consequence of out-of-pocket cost availability is that clinicians and patients will engage in excessive cost- based scrutiny of clinically appropriate treatment. Response: We understand that a potential impact of price transparency policy is that patients will engage in cost-based scrutiny. We note, however, that there is robust evidence that patients frequently use cost-based scrutiny outside of the clinic already. For example, a fifth of patients forgo prescribed medications due to cost and do so at high cost to their health.441 442 Patients generally make decisions about which medications to forgo when they are at the pharmacy, without input from their physician. We believe the availability of real-time prescription benefit information provides patients and clinicians with the opportunity to engage in more appropriate cost-based scrutiny. By discussing both financial and clinical tradeoffs at the time of the clinic visit, clinicians can hel patients and clinicians with the opportunity to engage in more appropriate cost-based scrutiny. By discussing both financial and clinical tradeoffs at the time of the clinic visit, clinicians can help patients find the treatment that is both most clinically appropriate for the patient and financially affordable. These interactions can also help clinicians to ensure that they fully understand a patient’s circumstances when using real-time prescription benefit information to inform recommendations to the patient. After consideration of public comments, we are finalizing our proposed requirements in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(A)–(B) with modifications. Specifically, we are finalizing a modification of the term ‘‘therapeutic alternative’’ as proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(A), (i)(B), 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(ii) to ‘‘alternative product.’’ We are not finalizing our proposal at 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(C) that a Health IT Module certified to the proposed criterion must enable a user to be notified of errors when there is a problem with a real-time prescription benefit transaction, in accordance with the ‘‘RTPBError transaction’’ referred to in the proposed rule. 441 Dusetzina, Stacie B., ified of errors when there is a problem with a real-time prescription benefit transaction, in accordance with the ‘‘RTPBError transaction’’ referred to in the proposed rule. 441 Dusetzina, Stacie B., et al. ‘‘Cost-related medication nonadherence and desire for medication cost information among adults aged 65 years and older in the US in 2022.’’ JAMA Network Open 6.5 (2023): e2314211–e2314211. 442 Nekui, Farrah, et al. ‘‘Cost-related medication nonadherence and its risk factors among Medicare beneficiaries.’’ Medical care 59.1 (2021): 13–21. (i) Use of XML Format We proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i) that a Health IT module certified to the criterion must enable a user to perform the specified transactions using the XML format. While the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 supports both EDI and XML formats, in response to the RFI included in the HTI–1 Proposed Rule (88 FR 23746), we received many comments in support of testing the XML format of the RTPB standard alone or with the EDI format as optional. Additionally, commenters recommended that ONC should test the format each individual health IT developer has chosen for its own system to be tested in. Some commenters also shared a desi as optional. Additionally, commenters recommended that ONC should test the format each individual health IT developer has chosen for its own system to be tested in. Some commenters also shared a desire to move away from XML and EDI altogether, preferring the JSON format instead, noting industry plans for the future retirement of XML and EDI. A commenter suggested certification in either format, with requirements that health IT be capable of demonstrating translation capabilities between EDI and XML. We stated in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63532) that we believe that proposing to only require use of the XML format will simplify testing for health IT developers. We noted that ONC will continue to monitor syntax and format updates and development for real-time benefit transactions and associated standards. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our responses: Comment: Several commenters supported the proposal that a Health IT module certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion must enable a user to perform the specified transactions using the XML format, arguing that this would simplify testing for health IT developers, increase standardizatio escription benefit’’ criterion must enable a user to perform the specified transactions using the XML format, arguing that this would simplify testing for health IT developers, increase standardization, and enhance interoperability. Commenters recommended that ASTP/ONC monitor developments in this area since NCPDP is in the process of transitioning its standards to JSON, which may present enhanced interoperability capabilities in the future. A commenter recommended offering the flexibility to choose between XML and JSON, arguing that allowing for either option would accommodate a broader range of use cases and preferences among developers and organizations, would promote innovation, and would ensure that systems are more adaptable to varying technical environments. Response: We thank the commenters for their support of the proposal to require a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00621 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37156 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations cri Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37156 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations criterion to enable users to perform specified transactions using the XML format and agree that this is the most appropriate format for inclusion as part of the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion. We appreciate the comments regarding the use of JSON; however, NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 does not currently support JSON. We will consider requiring support for the JSON format in future rulemaking as it is incorporated into future versions of the NCPDP RTPB standard. As discussed in the proposed rule, NCDP’s RTPB Standard Version 13 supports only XML and EDI formats (89 FR 63532). We did not propose to require support for EDI because it is an older format that is being used with less frequency by developers. After consideration of public comments, we are finalizing our proposal in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i) to require that a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion must enable users to perform the specified transactions using the XML format. (e) CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i) to require that a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion must enable users to perform the specified transactions using the XML format. (e) Additional Topics (i) Display We proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(ii) that a Health IT Module certified to the criterion must display to a user in human readable format patient-specific prescription benefit information, estimated cost information, and therapeutic alternatives in accordance with at least one of the versions of the standard in 45 CFR 170.205(c) (where we adopted NCPDP RTPB standard version 13). We noted that the ability to display RTPB data provides access to this information and is essential for a user to be able to use the information to inform shared decision-making as the provider and patient determine the treatment that will be best for them. Comment: A commenter supported the proposal that a Health IT Module certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion must display to a user in human readable format patient- specific prescription benefit information, estimated cost information, and therapeutic alternatives. A commenter noted that lack of usability n must display to a user in human readable format patient- specific prescription benefit information, estimated cost information, and therapeutic alternatives. A commenter noted that lack of usability of real-time benefit information particularly impacts patients who are dually insured. Response: We thank the commenters for their support. We encourage health IT developers to continue to improve the usability of how real-time benefit information is displayed to end users, including for patients with more complex coverage. After consideration of public comments, we are finalizing our proposal in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(ii) regarding the display of benefit information in a human readable format with modification. We are changing the term ‘‘therapeutic alternative,’’ which was used in proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(ii), to ‘‘alternative products’’ for consistency with the revisions to similar proposed language that we are finalizing in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(A)–(B). We describe the reasons for revising this term in section XI.B.4.b.(4)(d). of this final rule. (ii) Scope The NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 supports real-time prescription benefit requests and responses for a variety of it for revising this term in section XI.B.4.b.(4)(d). of this final rule. (ii) Scope The NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 supports real-time prescription benefit requests and responses for a variety of items manufactured for sale such as medications, vaccines, and medical devices or supplies.443 While the majority of products covered by an individual’s pharmacy benefit will be medications, Part D drugs, as defined at 42 CFR 423.100, can include prescription medications, vaccines, and supplies associated with the injection of insulin (for example, syringes, alcohol pads, gauze), and are represented by RXCUIs 444 on the formulary file. In the HTI–1 Proposed Rule we requested comment on the appropriate scope for a ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion, including whether a ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion should require support for products that are not defined as medications but may also be included in a RTPB transaction, namely vaccines and medical devices or supplies (87 FR 23853). We received several comments in response to our request for information on this topic, with several commenters encouraging an initial focus on medications for th cal devices or supplies (87 FR 23853). We received several comments in response to our request for information on this topic, with several commenters encouraging an initial focus on medications for the certification criterion. In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63533), we stated that, in addition to medications, we believe it is important to require Health IT Modules certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion to be able to support vaccines, and note that under Part D regulations and guidance, plans include most commercially available vaccines on their formularies.445 However, we stated 443 See https://www.ncpdp.org/Access-to- Standards.aspx. 444 An RXCUI is a machine-readable code or identifier that points to the common meaning shared by the various source names grouped and assigned to a particular concept. More information can be found at https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/ umls/rxnorm/overview.html. 445 See ‘‘Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Manual: Chapter 6—Part D Drugs and Formulary that we are not proposing to include devices and supplies in the proposed certification criterion at this time. We noted that the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 does yet not suppo Drugs and Formulary that we are not proposing to include devices and supplies in the proposed certification criterion at this time. We noted that the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 does yet not support the FDA Unique Device Identification System unique device identifiers (UDIs), which are identified as the standard for the Unique Device Identifier—Implantable data element in the Medical Devices data class in the USCDI.446 Additionally, we noted that devices covered under a pharmacy benefit may be defined as a drug under Section 201(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)) rather than a device under Section 201(h) and therefore are not assigned a Unique Device Identifier for Implantable Devices. We stated that ONC will continue to monitor advancements to the NCPDP RTPB standard to support unique identifiers for devices, any related developments at the FDA, and updates to the standardization and exchange of device and supplies data. In summary, we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(iii) that the scope of the criterion is limited to medications and vaccines covered by a pharmacy benefit. We invited comments on this proposal. The following is a summary of the co CFR 170.315(b)(4)(iii) that the scope of the criterion is limited to medications and vaccines covered by a pharmacy benefit. We invited comments on this proposal. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our responses: Comment: Many commenters agreed that vaccines should be included in the scope for the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion, as proposed. A commenter believed that vaccine cost estimation capabilities were not necessary, noting that it is atypical for clinicians to write prescriptions for vaccines. A commenter requested clarification on whether providers should be expected to receive a message if a vaccine is not covered. Response: We recognize that clinicians do not commonly write prescriptions for vaccines. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117–169) eliminated cost sharing and deductibles for adult vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) covered under Medicare Part D. However, Part D-covered vaccines are included in insurance formularies with other Part D-covered medications. Therefore, we did not propose and are not finalizing to exclude vaccines from the scope of the criter rt D-covered vaccines are included in insurance formularies with other Part D-covered medications. Therefore, we did not propose and are not finalizing to exclude vaccines from the scope of the criterion, even though clinicians may be unlikely to seek out benefit information on vaccines. Requirements’’ 30.2.7 at https://www.cms.gov/ medicare/prescription-drug-coverage/prescription drugcovcontra/downloads/part-d-benefits-manual- chapter-6.pdf. 446 See USCDI v4: https://www.healthit.gov/isa/ taxonomy/term/821/uscdi-v4. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00622 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37157 Regarding whether a response is generated in response to a request regarding a vaccine, we note that when a RTPBRequest segment is processed, the RTPBResponse provides information on whether the product is covered, not covered, or covered with restrictions. Comment: Regarding supplies, several commenters disagreed with the statement in the proposed rule that NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 does not yet s covered, not covered, or covered with restrictions. Comment: Regarding supplies, several commenters disagreed with the statement in the proposed rule that NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 does not yet support FDA Unique Device Identification System unique device identifiers (UDIs) (89 FR 63533). Commenters stated that the RTPB standard version 13 supports the communication of the mandatory, fixed Device Identifier portion of the UDI as issued by FDA Accredited Issuing Agencies, enabling support for information related to products and services covered under the pharmacy benefit, including medications, vaccines, supplies, devices, and prescription digital therapeutics. A commenter emphasized the importance of providing cost estimates for diabetes supplies, which comprise a substantial proportion of diabetes-related expenses. A few commenters supported limiting the RTPB scope to just medications and supplies. Response: We appreciate the feedback from commenters. We agree with commenters that the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 supports the exchange of information using the FDA UDI system. We also agree that there are important applications for real-time benefit services for supplies, whi t the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 supports the exchange of information using the FDA UDI system. We also agree that there are important applications for real-time benefit services for supplies, which can be an important source of out-of-pocket costs for patients, such as the diabetes supplies noted by a commenter. Being able to understand costs for supplies has the potential to improve patients’ financial security and access. After consideration of the public comments, we are not finalizing the proposed language at 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(iii) specifying a scope for the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion as we believe that it is unnecessary to limit the scope of the criterion. In the absence of this limitation, we expect that Health IT Modules certified to the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion will enable the exchange of information for any product and service covered under a pharmacy benefit consistent with the specifications in the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13. (iii) Formulary and Benefit In the HTI–1 Proposed Rule, we requested comment on whether we should further explore capabilities for Health IT Modules to support access to formulary and b rd version 13. (iii) Formulary and Benefit In the HTI–1 Proposed Rule, we requested comment on whether we should further explore capabilities for Health IT Modules to support access to formulary and benefits information and provided detail about how access to formulary and benefits information was previously supported within the Certification Program. We noted that in the 2015 Edition Final Rule, ONC included a ‘‘Drug-formulary and preferred drug list checks’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(a)(10). However, ONC did not adopt the proposed NCPDP Formulary and Benefit standard version 3.0 to support this criterion due to comments received in response to the 2015 Edition Proposed Rule (80 FR 16821). The drug formulary and preferred drug list checks 45 CFR 170.315(a)(10) certification criterion was later removed from the Certification Program in the ONC Cures Act Final Rule (85 FR 25660) because this functionality was widely available, and there was not sufficient reason to justify the burden on developers and providers of meeting Certification Program compliance requirements specific to this criterion. We noted that updates, enhancements, and corrections have been made to th fy the burden on developers and providers of meeting Certification Program compliance requirements specific to this criterion. We noted that updates, enhancements, and corrections have been made to the NCPDP Formulary and Benefit standard since we considered adopting version 3.0, and many of these updates addressed concerns commenters expressed previously (87 FR 23854). Subsequently, in the Part D and Health IT Standards Final Rule, we finalized adoption of NCPDP Formulary and Benefit standard version 60 in 45 CFR 170.205(u) (89 FR 51260), reflecting an aligned approach with the Part D Program to adoption of standards that support electronic prescribing. In the same rulemaking, CMS finalized, in 42 CFR 423.160(b)(3), a cross-reference to a standard in 45 CFR 170.205(u), which includes NCPDP Formulary and Benefit standard version 60, as part of the requirements for transmitting formulary and benefit information between prescribers and Part D sponsors (89 FR 51250 through 51251). However, we did not make any updates to the Certification Program to incorporate the proposed Formulary and Benefit standard as part of certification criteria. In response to our request for comment in the H , we did not make any updates to the Certification Program to incorporate the proposed Formulary and Benefit standard as part of certification criteria. In response to our request for comment in the HTI–1 Proposed Rule, some commenters supported incorporation of capabilities to access formulary and benefits information within the Certification Program based on the NCPDP Formulary and Benefit standard. However, many stated that a certification criterion based on the standard is not necessary as this functionality is already widespread in the industry due to existing CMS regulatory requirements. Furthermore, these commenters stated that a criterion based on the NCPDP Formulary and Benefit standard may limit innovation around other approaches to obtaining formulary and benefit information currently being explored by the industry. In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63533), we stated we considered the comments received in response to the RFI and have determined not to propose new functionality related to formulary and benefits information within the Certification Program at this time. We also noted that we proposed to adopt the HL7 FHIR Da Vinci—Payer Data Exchange (PDex) US Drug Formula ty related to formulary and benefits information within the Certification Program at this time. We also noted that we proposed to adopt the HL7 FHIR Da Vinci—Payer Data Exchange (PDex) US Drug Formulary Implementation Guide, Version 2.0.1— STU 2, in 45 CFR 170.215(m)(i) in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule. In this final rule, we are finalizing adoption of this IG in 45 CFR 170.215(m)(i). Use of the PDex Drug Formulary IG supports the availability of a payer’s drug formulary via a FHIR interface, providing an alternative pathway for making this information available for those payers that have not implemented the NCPDP Formulary and Benefit standard. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our responses: Comment: Several commenters noted the importance of providing formulary and benefit information to clinicians to aid in decision making, reduce delays in care, and reduce administrative burden. A commenter requested that ASTP/ONC work to ensure accuracy of formularies and identified several concerns related to formulary accuracy. They further recommended steps to improve formulary accuracy, including standardizing and harmonizing search scopes across formularies, ensuring a ified several concerns related to formulary accuracy. They further recommended steps to improve formulary accuracy, including standardizing and harmonizing search scopes across formularies, ensuring availability and interoperability of additional information that may be contained in formularies, and requiring the use of and dissemination of a standardized public identifier for each distinct formulary an insurer maintains. Response: We thank commenters for their feedback. While we did not make any proposals related to formulary information in the proposed rule, we will continue to work with CMS and other HHS partners on issues around improving formulary accuracy. We acknowledge that for RTBTs to be valuable and trustworthy, the cost and coverage information they present must be accurate. Part D plan sponsors should ensure that formulary files are updated in a timely manner, so that when RTPB transactions are sent, they return accurate coverage information. We did not make and are not finalizing any proposals related to formulary and benefits. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00623 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 nalizing any proposals related to formulary and benefits. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00623 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37158 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations (iv) Negotiated Price Section 1860D–4(o)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, as added by section 119(a) of the CAA, 2021, specifically requires real- time benefit tools capable of providing information on ‘‘cost-sharing information and the negotiated price’’ for drugs and alternatives. In the HTI– 2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63533), we noted that we have not proposed to include negotiated price in the proposed 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) certification criterion. We stated the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13 does not include fields to support the exchange of negotiated price. We solicited comments regarding negotiated price in response to the RFI, and commenters expressed strong disapproval for the inclusion of negotiated price in RTBTs. Additionally, we noted concerns were shared that plan negotiated prices may be confusing to providers and patients and are not likely to assist or impr for the inclusion of negotiated price in RTBTs. Additionally, we noted concerns were shared that plan negotiated prices may be confusing to providers and patients and are not likely to assist or improve the utility or usability of technology certified to a real-time prescription benefit certification criterion. We also noted that the exchange of negotiated price by Part D sponsors when implementing an electronic real-time benefit tool is not currently supported by the NCPDP RTPB standard version 13. NCPDP RTPB standard version 13, which we proposed to incorporate into the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion, is the best available standard for use currently to provide patient specific cost-sharing information. Unfortunately, we have not identified a standard or any consistent approach to deliver reliable negotiated price information in real-time. We stated that ONC will continue to work with CMS and other interested parties to determine how negotiated price information may be made available and what technical approaches exist to support transparency in negotiated prices of drugs. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our response ice information may be made available and what technical approaches exist to support transparency in negotiated prices of drugs. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our responses: Comment: A commenter noted that NCPDP RTPB Standard Version 13 does not currently contain negotiated price fields. Several commenters expressed disappointment that the standard does not include negotiated price, and that including negotiated price would enhance transparency and ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of the financial implications of medical decisions. Response: In prior rulemaking, some commenters have requested a display of full negotiated price, while others have expressed concerns that disclosing negotiated prices would have anticompetitive effects (89 FR 51249). We appreciate the interest in this information and acknowledge the requirement in section 119(b) of Subtitle B of Title I of Division CC of the CAA, 2021 that a qualified electronic health record (as defined in in section 3000(13) of the Public Health Service Act) include an RTBT capable of transmitting cost sharing information and the negotiated price of a drug and its formulary alternat cord (as defined in in section 3000(13) of the Public Health Service Act) include an RTBT capable of transmitting cost sharing information and the negotiated price of a drug and its formulary alternatives, among other requirements. As noted in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule, at this time, NCPDP RTPB standard version 13, which we have incorporated in the ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ criterion, lacks fields that support the exchange of negotiated prices, but it is the best available standard and otherwise meets the statutory requirements for RTBTs (89 FR 63533 through 63534). CMS and ASTP/ONC will continue to work with other interested parties to determine how and at what time negotiated price information may be made available in RTBTs and certified Health IT Modules supporting access to real-time benefit information. We did not make and are not finalizing any proposals related to negotiated price. In summary, after consideration of the public comments, we are finalizing adoption of the proposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) with the following modifications: • We are replacing the term ‘‘therapeutic alternatives’’ in 45 CFR 170.315( roposed ‘‘real-time prescription benefit’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4) with the following modifications: • We are replacing the term ‘‘therapeutic alternatives’’ in 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(A), (i)(B), and (ii) with the term ‘‘alternative products.’’ • We are clarifying that a Health IT Module must enable a user to conduct transactions in accordance with one of the versions of RxNorm ‘‘at a minimum’’ to ensure alignment with the existing minimum standards code set policy in the Certification Program in 45 CFR 170.555. • We are not finalizing the proposed requirement 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(i)(C) that a Health IT Module enable a user to be notified of errors when there is a problem with a real-time prescription benefit transaction. • We are not finalizing the provision at 45 CFR 170.315(b)(4)(iii) to limit the scope of the criterion to medications and vaccines covered by a pharmacy benefit. capabilities.’’ We stated that this new certification criteria category would promote the Certification Program’s modular certification approach and, importantly, would enable different combinations of capabilities across Health IT Modules depending on future use case needs. We no mote the Certification Program’s modular certification approach and, importantly, would enable different combinations of capabilities across Health IT Modules depending on future use case needs. We noted in the HTI– 2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63567) that, in general, we expect the capabilities in 45 CFR 170.315(j) to be standards-based and include a combination of new and existing standards, many of which are currently referenced in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(10). Additionally, we stated we anticipate that the proposed capabilities in 45 CFR 170.315(j) would enable the Certification Program to better support a growing number of clinical, public health, and administrative use cases over the long- term, as well as foster innovation and competition in these spaces by providing flexibility for modular development approaches among developers of certified health IT. We discussed in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63567) that since 2020, the standards development community has undertaken work to: (1) update existing standards and implementation specifications (for example, US Core IG from version 3.1.1 to 7.0.0 447); (2) formalize previously functional capabilities as part of implementation specificati e existing standards and implementation specifications (for example, US Core IG from version 3.1.1 to 7.0.0 447); (2) formalize previously functional capabilities as part of implementation specifications (for example, token introspection is now part of SMART App Launch 2.0 448); and (3) support new and revised capabilities that are modular and use case agnostic (for example, HL7 CDS Hooks 449, FHIR Subscriptions 450, and UDAP Security FHIR IG 451, among other implementation specifications). These developments have changed the heath IT landscape and helped support a wider range of potential technical solutions for healthcare use cases that previously may not have been supported, or were ineffectively supported, by health IT. We noted that by using the term ‘‘modular’’ we mean certification criteria in the Certification Program that are scoped to limited capabilities to enable health IT developers to certify to the specific certification criteria that apply to Health IT Modules they wish to certify, rather than large, multi- functionality, and all-encompassing certification criteria that would give (5) New Certification Criteria for Modular API Capabilities (a) Background In the HTI– to certify, rather than large, multi- functionality, and all-encompassing certification criteria that would give (5) New Certification Criteria for Modular API Capabilities (a) Background In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule, we proposed to add a new paragraph (j) to 45 CFR 170.315 titled ‘‘modular API 447 https://hl7.org/fhir/us/core/history.html. 448 https://hl7.org/fhir/smart-app-launch/STU2/ token-introspection.html. 449 https://cds-hooks.hl7.org/. 450 https://hl7.org/fhir/uv/subscriptions-backport/ STU1.1/. 451 https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/fhir-udap- security-ig/branches/main/index.html. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00624 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37159 developers less flexibility for certifying in the Certification Program. Based on our analysis of the continued evolution of standards and the real-world implementation scenarios for certified health IT to enable FHIR- based APIs, we proposed in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63568) to adopt new certification criteria as modular API ca d the real-world implementation scenarios for certified health IT to enable FHIR- based APIs, we proposed in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63568) to adopt new certification criteria as modular API capabilities proposed as certification criteria in 45 CFR 170.315(j). Under the narrow focus for this final rule, we are only finalizing two criteria proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j) that we proposed to reference within the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API— provider’’ criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(34). Specifically, we are finalizing the ‘‘workflow triggers for decision support interventions— clients’’ criterion that supports workflow triggers for decision support interventions client capabilities in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20), and the ‘‘subscriptions—client’’ criterion that supports subscriptions client capabilities in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(21) (proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)). At this time, we are not finalizing any of the other certification criteria we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j). However, we may consider finalizing these criteria in future notice-and- comment rulemaking. (b) Modular API Capabilities Certification Criteria (i) Workflow Triggers for Decision Support Interventions—Client I e may consider finalizing these criteria in future notice-and- comment rulemaking. (b) Modular API Capabilities Certification Criteria (i) Workflow Triggers for Decision Support Interventions—Client In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule, we proposed to adopt the CDS Hooks Release 2.0 implementation specification (CDS Hooks IG) in 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1) to support the Certification Program requirements for the proposed certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20), which establishes requirements for ‘‘clients’’ participating in API-based workflow triggers for decision support (89 FR 63570). CDS Hooks is a specification that describes a ‘‘hook’’-based pattern for invoking or triggering decision support from within a clinician’s workflow (typically the ‘‘client’’ side of this pattern). We described that this pattern facilitates a clinician’s ability to either pull in results from decision support directly into a clinician’s workflow or can be used to launch an interactive application (89 FR 63571). We proposed that a Health IT Module presented for certification to 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) support the requirements of the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1) (where we proposed to ado We proposed that a Health IT Module presented for certification to 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) support the requirements of the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1) (where we proposed to adopt CDS Hooks Release 2.0) as a ‘‘CDS Client,’’ including support for the registration of ‘‘CDS Services’’ according to the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1), in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(i), and support for authentication and authorization 452 according to the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1), in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(ii) (89 FR 63570). We also proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iii) that Health IT Modules certified to 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) support the execution of decision support workflow triggers in accordance with the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1), as well as demonstrate the ability to send a decision support request to a CDS Service according to the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1), in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv) (89 FR 63570). As part of the capability to send a decision support request to a CDS Service, we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(A) that a Health IT Module support the ability to deliver a CD v) (89 FR 63570). As part of the capability to send a decision support request to a CDS Service, we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(A) that a Health IT Module support the ability to deliver a CDS Hook request with pre-fetched information according to the ‘‘Pre-fetch Template’’ section of the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1). We also proposed that the Health IT Module support access to HL7 FHIR Resources via a RESTful API to support decision support intervention workflows according to the ‘‘FHIR Resource Access’’ section of the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1), in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(B). Finally, we proposed that a Health IT module support the receipt of a decision support response according to the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1), in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(C), including support for the display of the contents of a decision support response to an end- user and support for the ability to launch internal apps and SMART apps from decision support responses according to the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f), including support for the ‘‘Link’’ field ‘‘appContext,’’ in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(C)(1 MART apps from decision support responses according to the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(f), including support for the ‘‘Link’’ field ‘‘appContext,’’ in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(C)(1) and 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(C)(2), respectively. In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule, we noted that the proposed workflow triggers criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) did not define or propose specific workflows associated with decision support, including how and when clinicians use decision support 452 CDS Hooks Release 2.0 includes authentication and authorization of endpoints and identity of the CDS Client. We direct readers to the implementation specification for more detail. capabilities (89 FR 63571). Rather, we proposed to include standards-based interfaces in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) to enable clinical systems to call other systems offering decision support services in a standardized manner to support the exchange and use of these services.453 454 455 We requested comment on these proposals. The following is a summary of the comments received on the HTI– 2 Proposed Rule and our responses: Comment: Several commenters supported our proposal to adopt the ‘‘workflow triggers for decision su . The following is a summary of the comments received on the HTI– 2 Proposed Rule and our responses: Comment: Several commenters supported our proposal to adopt the ‘‘workflow triggers for decision support interventions—client’’ certification criterion at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) to enable clinical systems to call other systems offering decision support services in a standardized manner, leveraging the CDS Hooks standard proposed for adoption at 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1). Many commenters supported our proposed requirements to reference the ‘‘workflow triggers for decision support interventions—client’’ criterion in the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(34) to facilitate prior authorization workflows. Other commenters highlighted broader benefits of CDS Hooks to support adherence to clinical guidelines, reduce medical errors, and support real-time notifications for patient visits. Response: We thank commenters for their support. Comment: Several commenters offered recommendations on whether and which ‘‘hooks’’ the Certification Program should require Health IT Modules to support in the ‘‘workflow triggers for decision support interventions—client’’ ters offered recommendations on whether and which ‘‘hooks’’ the Certification Program should require Health IT Modules to support in the ‘‘workflow triggers for decision support interventions—client’’ criterion. Many commenters supported the number and types of hooks we proposed to be supported by Health IT Modules in the Certification Program. Other commenters recommended we finalize support for fewer hooks and that we finalize a policy of flexibility that would enable developers of certified health IT 453 Bradshaw, R.L., Kawamoto, K., Kaphingst, K.A., Kohlmann, W.K., Hess, R., Flynn, M. C., . . . Del Fiol, G. (2022). GARDE: a standards-based clinical decision support platform for identifying population health management cohorts. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 29(5), 928–936. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac028. 454 Morgan, K.L., Kukhareva, P., Warner, P.B., Wilkof, J., Snyder, M., Horton, D., . . . Kawamoto, K. (2022). Using CDS Hooks to increase SMART on FHIR app utilization: a cluster-randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 29(9), 1461–1470. doi:10.1093/ jamia/ocac085. 455 Watkins, M., & Eilbeck, K. (2020). FHIR L app utilization: a cluster-randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 29(9), 1461–1470. doi:10.1093/ jamia/ocac085. 455 Watkins, M., & Eilbeck, K. (2020). FHIR Lab Reports: using SMART on FHIR and CDS Hooks to increase the clinical utility of pharmacogenomic laboratory test results. AMIA Summits on Translational Science proceedings, 2020, 683–692. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00625 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37160 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations to support at least one hook based on what will provide the most value for their particular customer base. Some commenters recommended the Certification Program require Health IT Modules to support ‘‘order-select’’ as a required hook for initial implementation to support earlier decision support in workflows and reduce interruptions. Other commenters suggested the Certification Program also require support for the ‘‘order-sign,’’ ‘‘patient- view,’’ and ‘‘appointment book’’ hooks. One of these commenters additionally recommended that t r commenters suggested the Certification Program also require support for the ‘‘order-sign,’’ ‘‘patient- view,’’ and ‘‘appointment book’’ hooks. One of these commenters additionally recommended that the Certification Program add required support for the ‘‘suggestions’’ and ‘‘feedback’’ capabilities of the CDS Hooks standard. Still other commenters supported the adoption of specified hooks only when an IG exists to support a specific use case, noting that any hook will need to be use case-specific in order to provide industry value. Response: We thank commenters for their input regarding whether and which hooks to require support for across the Certification Program. We note that within our proposals for the certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) we did not specify which hooks Health IT Modules would be required to support. Rather, we specified hooks within proposed criteria referencing 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20), including the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ certification criterion, at 45 CFR 170.315(g)(34)(i)(B). As described in the ‘‘Coverage Requirements Discovery’’ section IX.B.4.b.(6) of this final rule we are finalizing one required hook (the ‘‘order-sign’’ ation criterion, at 45 CFR 170.315(g)(34)(i)(B). As described in the ‘‘Coverage Requirements Discovery’’ section IX.B.4.b.(6) of this final rule we are finalizing one required hook (the ‘‘order-sign’’ hook) as part of ‘‘provider prior authorization API— coverage requirements discovery’’ criterion at 45 CFR 170.315(g)(31)(i)(B). We are not finalizing any specific hooks in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20). We understand commenters’ concerns regarding the scope of requirements for this new specification and, consistent with these concerns, we are finalizing only one required hook in the Certification Program at this time. Comment: Some commenters questioned whether proposed timelines for implementation were appropriate and requested more emphasis on testing and validation of CDS Hooks. Response: We did not propose and are not finalizing an implementation timeline or other deadlines for Health IT Modules to be certified to 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20). Comment: Some commenters requested more specific guidance on ‘‘pre-fetch templates’’ while others recommended that ASTP/ONC finalize that certified health IT is not required to support any pre-fetch templates. Response: We appreciate commenters’ concerns ce on ‘‘pre-fetch templates’’ while others recommended that ASTP/ONC finalize that certified health IT is not required to support any pre-fetch templates. Response: We appreciate commenters’ concerns with our proposals related to ‘‘pre-fetch templates.’’ We are not finalizing the ‘‘pre-fetch’’ requirements proposed at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(A) to provide industry additional time to refine the specifications and capabilities supporting ‘‘pre-fetch.’’ We anticipate that given the complexity and potential value of ‘‘pre-fetch’’ capabilities, the standards development community and other interested parties will continue to improve standards and guidance in this area, and we will monitor this work for potential future inclusion in the Certification Program. After consideration of the public comment, we are finalizing our proposal to adopt the CDS Hooks implementation specification under 45 CFR 170.215(f) by adopting the CDS Hooks Implementation Guide, Version 2.0.1— STU 2 Release 2 at 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1), and incorporating it by reference in 45 CFR 170.299(g). We note that we proposed to adopt CDS Hooks Release 2.0; however, since the publication of the proposal a newer version of t CFR 170.215(f)(1), and incorporating it by reference in 45 CFR 170.299(g). We note that we proposed to adopt CDS Hooks Release 2.0; however, since the publication of the proposal a newer version of the implementation specification, CDS Hooks Version 2.0.1, was published on March 12, 2025. CDS Hooks Implementation Guide, Version 2.0.1 is an errata release that does not introduce substantive changes to the specification from Release 2.0. Rather, version 2.0.1 updates the publishing mechanism and formatting of the implementation guide. We believe adoption of this errata release will benefit Certification Program compliance by referencing a version of the implementation specification with the same substantive content as the proposed release but in an improved publication format. Adoption of version 2.0.1 of this specification will also support consistent implementation across industry because it is the latest and most correct version of the CDS Hooks implementation guide. We are also finalizing our proposal to adopt a ‘‘workflow triggers for decision support interventions—client’’ criterion at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) with modification. We are finalizing adjustments to the proposed langu lizing our proposal to adopt a ‘‘workflow triggers for decision support interventions—client’’ criterion at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) with modification. We are finalizing adjustments to the proposed language to streamline and clarify the regulation text without introducing substantive changes to the proposal with the exceptions of the removal of the requirements to support ‘‘pre-fetch’’ proposed at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(A) and the removal of the requirement proposed at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(C)(2) to support the ‘‘Link’’ field ‘‘appContext’’. Non- substantive changes to the proposed language include revising specification references from 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1) to 45 CFR 170.215(f) to consistently reference the CDS Hooks specification, consolidating several proposed references to the specifications at 45 CFR 170.215(f) into a single reference in the paragraph at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20), and rephrasing the required registration capabilities in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(i) in terms of ‘‘CDS Clients.’’ The structure of 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) that we are finalizing remains largely the same as the proposal except for the addition of two subparagraphs under 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(ii) to specify ients.’’ The structure of 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) that we are finalizing remains largely the same as the proposal except for the addition of two subparagraphs under 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(ii) to specify authentication and authorization requirements with additional clarity, and the removal of the requirements to support ‘‘pre-fetch’’ proposed at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(A). The requirements we are finalizing at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(ii)(A) and (B) clarify that client authentication must be supported using JSON web tokens (JWT), and data access authorization of a ‘‘CDS Service’’ using access tokens must be supported, respectively. This additional specificity resolves potential ambiguity regarding whether certain authentication and authorization capabilities from the CDS Hooks IG are required to be supported for the ‘‘workflow triggers for decision support interventions—client’’ criterion. Finally, we are finalizing 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) without the regulation text proposed at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(C)(2). We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(C)(2) to support the ability to launch internal apps and SMART apps from decision support respon 5(j)(20)(iv)(C)(2). We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20)(iv)(C)(2) to support the ability to launch internal apps and SMART apps from decision support responses according to the implementation specification 45 CFR 170.215(f)(1), including support for the ‘‘Link’’ field ‘‘appContext.’’ We have removed this requirement from the regulation text in our finalization of 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) to provide health IT developers certifying to the 45 CFR 170.315(j)(20) criterion with the flexibility to support this optional CDS Hooks capability as applicable to their workflows. (ii) Subscriptions—Client In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule, we discussed the HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework, which describes a standardized method for clients to subscribe to notifications from servers based on pre-negotiated criteria (89 FR 63572). Once the subscription is established, servers can proactively notify a client when new information has been added or existing information has been updated in its system. Once a notification has been received by a VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00626 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h as been updated in its system. Once a notification has been received by a VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00626 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37161 client, the client can take appropriate action, including querying the server for the desired information. The HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework also describes methods to transmit payloads with notifications, which may help simplify some interorganizational transactions by enabling real-time updates, selective data transmission, and interoperability, making data exchange between organizations more efficient and effective. We anticipated that API-based subscriptions would support several use cases across clinical, public health, administrative, and research domains. Specific to public health use cases, we envisioned that future implementation guides could leverage the HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework for case reporting processes, immunization reporting processes, syndromic surveillance, reportable laboratory tests and values, and transmitting ca could leverage the HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework for case reporting processes, immunization reporting processes, syndromic surveillance, reportable laboratory tests and values, and transmitting cancer case information to state cancer registries, among others. We welcomed comments on this approach, particularly with respect to the readiness of this standard to support public health reporting and any potential benefits or limitations to this approach that should be considered. We stated that the HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework has undergone a significant redesign during the development of the HL7® FHIR® Release 5 (R5) standard, including the use of ‘‘SubscriptionTopic’’ HL7 FHIR Resources that define the criteria for standardized subscription notifications. We noted that we structured our proposal in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(23) to best accommodate health IT developers’ and the industry’s maturity so that API- based subscriptions can be more easily implemented in the current health IT landscape. While the HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework in HL7® FHIR® R5 is well developed, the health IT industry is largely using HL7® FHIR® Release 4, Version 4.0.1 (HL7® FHIR® R4), for HL7 FHIR standard scape. While the HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework in HL7® FHIR® R5 is well developed, the health IT industry is largely using HL7® FHIR® Release 4, Version 4.0.1 (HL7® FHIR® R4), for HL7 FHIR standards-based exchange. We stated that updating all the criteria in the Certification Program to HL7® FHIR® R5 to accommodate the updated HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework would not be practicable nor prudent given the full-scale industry redesign that would be necessary to do so and impacts on users. In order to enable health IT developers using HL7® FHIR® R4, to support the improvements made in the HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework in HL7® FHIR® R5, the HL7 standards community created the Subscriptions R5 Backport Implementation Guide version 1.1.0, which specifies some of the HL7® FHIR® R5 Subscriptions Framework enhancements in a way that is compatible with HL7® FHIR® R4. We proposed that a Health IT Module presented for certification to the ‘‘subscriptions—client’’ criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24) support API-based subscriptions according to HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework included in the HL7 FHIR Subscriptions R5 Backport Implementation Guide version 1.1.0 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘ (j)(24) support API-based subscriptions according to HL7 FHIR Subscriptions Framework included in the HL7 FHIR Subscriptions R5 Backport Implementation Guide version 1.1.0 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Subscriptions IG’’), which we proposed to adopt in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1). We described that the proposals in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24) specify constraints on the implementation specification proposed in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1), which intended to ensure that Health IT Modules certified to 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24) could conform to separate but related aspects and functions of the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(h). Recognizing the importance of reducing burden on health IT developers while also striving to improve nationwide interoperability, we proposed to adopt the Subscriptions IG in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1) to support the certification criterion for API-based subscriptions in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24) ‘‘subscriptions—client’’ requirements. We described that the Subscriptions IG includes API-based subscription functionality that goes beyond the scope of FHIR R4, but for the purposes of the Certification Program, we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)(i) that Health IT Modules support the re based subscription functionality that goes beyond the scope of FHIR R4, but for the purposes of the Certification Program, we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)(i) that Health IT Modules support the requirements specified in section ‘‘1.6 Topic-Based Subscriptions—FHIR R4’’ of the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1). Additionally, we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)(ii) that Health IT Modules support the ‘‘R4/B Topic-Based Subscription’’ profile as specified in the Subscriptions IG. We noted that while this profile is compatible with both HL7® FHIR® R4.0.1, and HL7® FHIR® R4B, we proposed it for use with HL7® FHIR® R4, at this time. We proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)(iii) that Health IT Modules support the accompanying client capabilities for the minimum requirements included in the ‘‘R4 Topic-Based Subscription Server Capability Statement’’ of the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1), including support for ‘‘create,’’ ‘‘update,’’ and ‘‘delete’’ interactions for HL7 FHIR Subscription Resources according to the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1). Finally, we proposed in 170.315(j)(24)(iv) that Health IT Modules support the ability actions for HL7 FHIR Subscription Resources according to the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1). Finally, we proposed in 170.315(j)(24)(iv) that Health IT Modules support the ability to receive subscription notifications, according to the ‘‘1.6 Topic-Based Subscriptions— FHIR R4’’ section of the implementation specification in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1). We proposed to include in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)(iv)(A) that support for ‘‘id-only’’ Payload Types is required as specified in the ‘‘Payload Types’’ section of the implementation specifications in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1). We noted there are three options available when specifying contents of a notification: empty, id-only, and full- resource. We stated we believe that id- only provides a good balance between security and performance. We noted that proposals in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24) included in this section reflected public feedback we received in the HTI–1 Proposed Rule. We described that the REST-hook channel uses the RESTful model which is extensively used in FHIR standard and is considered to present the lowest bar for implementation. We proposed to include in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)(iv)(B) required support for consuming n model which is extensively used in FHIR standard and is considered to present the lowest bar for implementation. We proposed to include in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)(iv)(B) required support for consuming notifications via the ‘‘REST-Hook’’ channel as specified in the ‘‘Channels’’ section of the implementation specifications in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1). We noted that we included a reference to the proposed certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24) in the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API— provider’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(34) and referred readers to that section for more information on the proposals. We stated we believe our proposal and alternative proposals 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24) reflected the public feedback we received during the HTI–1 rulemaking process. We acknowledged that the standards may have matured beyond the prior recommended feedback from the HTI–1 Proposed Rule and requested comment on these proposals and whether interested individuals and organizations would prefer to implement other standards listed in the Subscriptions IG, including API-based subscriptions based on HL7 FHIR R5. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our respo s would prefer to implement other standards listed in the Subscriptions IG, including API-based subscriptions based on HL7 FHIR R5. The following is a summary of the comments we received and our responses: Comment: Many commenters supported our proposal to incorporate the modular API capabilities from the Subscriptions IG Version 1.1.0 into certified health IT. Response: We thank commenters for their support. Comment: A few commenters supported the subscription proposal with modification requesting that ASTP/ONC adopt the FHIR R4B VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00627 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37162 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations standard to simplify implementation and reduce complexity to ensure consistency across different systems and leverage enhanced backport for security reasons. Response: We thank commenters for their recommendation. However, we are finalizing our proposal to only require support for the ‘‘R4/B Topic-Based Subscription’’ profile according to HL7® FHIR ® Release 4.0.1 at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(21)( their recommendation. However, we are finalizing our proposal to only require support for the ‘‘R4/B Topic-Based Subscription’’ profile according to HL7® FHIR ® Release 4.0.1 at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(21)(ii), rather than require support for the broader FHIR R4B standard. Requiring broader support for R4B is not necessary to support the Subscriptions IG Version 1.1.0. Further, requiring support for the broader FHIR R4B standard would represent a significant and complex undertaking across all Health IT Modules supporting criteria that reference IGs that use FHIR R4. Comment: A commenter expressed uncertainty about the overarching subscriptions proposals citing that the subscriptions specification could benefit from more real-world use experience before being adopted as a standard for certification. Response: We thank commenters for their concern and are finalizing a simplified version of our proposals in response to concerns over implementation experience in the real world. Specifically, we are not requiring support for the ‘‘id-only’’ payload type at this time. We believe that requiring a specific payload type in the ‘‘subscriptions—client’’ criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(21) is prematu are not requiring support for the ‘‘id-only’’ payload type at this time. We believe that requiring a specific payload type in the ‘‘subscriptions—client’’ criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(21) is premature. This flexibility will give developers of certified health IT the option to choose the most appropriate payload types when certifying to this criterion. Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns regarding both the proposed ‘‘subscriptions—server’’ criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(23) and ‘‘subscriptions—client’’ criterion at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24). However, the concerns raised included technical feedback involving topic complexity, implementation burden, and subscription delivery methods applied specifically to the server-side functionality proposed under 45 CFR 170.315(j)(23). Several commenters also expressed confusion about the distinction between client and server responsibilities, with some mistakenly referring to 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24) as the server requirement. A few commenters requested clearer delineation between the roles to avoid misinterpretation. Response: We thank commenters for their concern. In this final rule we are only finalizing the ‘‘client’’ capabilities describe uested clearer delineation between the roles to avoid misinterpretation. Response: We thank commenters for their concern. In this final rule we are only finalizing the ‘‘client’’ capabilities described in our subscription proposals. We anticipate that ‘‘server’’ capabilities will be a necessary component of the ecosystem for prior authorization workflows, as well as other potential uses for subscriptions capabilities, and we anticipate that some developers of certified health IT may support server capabilities currently. However, we are not finalizing such server capabilities in the Certification Program at this time, and we reiterate that we are only requiring support for ‘‘client’’ capabilities for subscriptions at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(21). Comment: A few commenters raised issues that are out of scope for this final rule, including modular API capabilities for subscription proposals specific to Public Health Agencies (PHAs) and the feasibility and resources needed to support the PHA use cases. Response: We thank commenters for their feedback specific to PHAs and as stated previously, we have limited our focus to those criteria in 45 CFR 170.315(j) that relate to the ‘‘prior authoriz cases. Response: We thank commenters for their feedback specific to PHAs and as stated previously, we have limited our focus to those criteria in 45 CFR 170.315(j) that relate to the ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ criterion we proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(34). We will consider the commenters’ suggestions in future rulemaking. After consideration of the public comment, we are finalizing adoption of the Subscriptions IG Version 1.1.0 at 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1) and incorporating it by reference in 45 CFR 170.299(g). We are also finalizing the ‘‘Subscriptions— client’’ certification criterion at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(21), which corresponds to the criterion proposed at 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24), with modifications. We are finalizing a simplified version in recognition of comments regarding need for real-world experience with implementation. Specifically, we are finalizing 45 CFR 170.315(j)(21) without support for ‘‘id-only’’ Payload Types as specified in the ‘‘Payload Types’’ section of the implementation specifications in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1) as proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)(iv)(A). Since we are not finalizing support for ‘‘id-only’’ Payload Types, we consolidated paragraph 45 CFR 170 plementation specifications in 45 CFR 170.215(h)(1) as proposed in 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)(iv)(A). Since we are not finalizing support for ‘‘id-only’’ Payload Types, we consolidated paragraph 45 CFR 170.315(j)(24)(iv)(B) into 45 CFR 170.315(j)(21)(iv) without substantive changes. (6) New Certification Criteria for Electronic Prior Authorization (a) Overview In section III.B.20. of the HTI–2 Proposed Rule we proposed to adopt a set of certification criteria in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(30)–(36) to support data exchange between healthcare payers, providers, and patients (89 FR 63580 through 63594). We stated that these proposed certification criteria would enable the exchange of data including clinical and coverage information, drug formulary information, and prior authorization information between patients, providers, and payers as appropriate to each exchange. We noted that these proposed certification criteria were based on a series of policies finalized by CMS (89 FR 63580). We stated that these certification criteria, if finalized, would be available for health IT developers (which may include payers and other developers providing technology to payers) seeking voluntary certification for se certification criteria, if finalized, would be available for health IT developers (which may include payers and other developers providing technology to payers) seeking voluntary certification for health IT products supporting these use cases. We also proposed to adopt a set of API implementation specifications on behalf of the Secretary, in 45 CFR 170.215(j), (k), (m), and (n), for HHS use, which we proposed to reference in the proposed certification criteria. We noted that the proposed implementation specifications included recommended implementation specifications identified in CMS’ finalized policies for payer API requirements (89 FR 8945). In this final rule, we are finalizing a subset of the proposals in section III.B.20 of the HTI–2 Proposed Rule. Specifically, we are adopting electronic prior authorization criteria in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(31), (32), and (33) based on the capabilities originally proposed for the ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(34), and finalizing related proposals extending the applicability of certain Condition and Maintenance of Certification and real world testing provisions under the Certification Program CFR 170.315(g)(34), and finalizing related proposals extending the applicability of certain Condition and Maintenance of Certification and real world testing provisions under the Certification Program to these electronic prior authorization criteria. We are also adopting a series of implementation specifications for HHS use that support these criteria, as well as other exchange use cases between payers, providers, and patients. We may consider finalizing other proposals in section III.B.20. of the HTI–2 Proposed Rule in future rulemaking. (b) Background (i) Background on CMS Interoperability Rulemaking On May 1, 2020, the ‘‘Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Interoperability and Patient Access for Medicare Advantage (MA) Organization and Medicaid Managed Care Plans, State Medicaid Agencies, CHIP Agencies and CHIP Managed Care Entities, Issuers of Qualified Health Plans on the Federally-Facilitated Exchanges, and Health Care Providers’’ final rule (85 FR 25510) appeared in the Federal Register (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘CMS Interoperability and Patient VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00628 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 e (85 FR 25510) appeared in the Federal Register (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘CMS Interoperability and Patient VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00628 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37163 Access Final Rule’’). CMS required impacted payers 456 to implement and maintain a FHIR-based Patient Access API to allow patients, through the health application of their choice, to easily access their claims and encounter information as well as clinical data, including laboratory results, and provider remittances and enrollee cost- sharing pertaining to such claims, if maintained by the impacted payer (85 FR 25559). CMS also required impacted payers to maintain a Provider Directory API to make available information such as contracted provider names, addresses, and phone numbers (85 FR 25563). On February 8, 2024, the ‘‘Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Advancing Interoperability and Improving Prior Authorization Processes for Medicare Advantage Organizations, 8, 2024, the ‘‘Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Advancing Interoperability and Improving Prior Authorization Processes for Medicare Advantage Organizations, Medicaid Managed Care Plans, State Medicaid Agencies, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Agencies and CHIP Managed Care Entities, Issuers of Qualified Health Plans on the Federally-Facilitated Exchanges, Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Eligible Clinicians, and Eligible Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals in the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program’’ (CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule) appeared in the Federal Register (89 FR 8758). Final policies in this rule included: expanding the content available via the existing Patient Access API to include information about prior authorizations; requiring impacted payers to implement and maintain a Provider Access API to make patient data available to in-network providers with whom the patient has a treatment relationship; and requiring impacted payers build and maintain a Payer-to- Payer API to exchange patient data when a patient moves between payers or has concurrent payers. CMS also requir a treatment relationship; and requiring impacted payers build and maintain a Payer-to- Payer API to exchange patient data when a patient moves between payers or has concurrent payers. CMS also required impacted payers to implement and maintain a Prior Authorization API to facilitate electronic prior authorization processes. Finally, the rule added the Electronic Prior Authorization measures to the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program and the MIPS Promoting Interoperability 456 For the purposes of the CMS Interoperability and Patient Access and Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rules discussed in this section, impacted payers include Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations, state Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) programs, state Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) FFS programs, Medicaid managed care plans, CHIP managed care entities, and Qualified Health Plan (QHP) issuers on the Federally-facilitated Exchanges (FFEs). performance category (89 FR 8909 through 8926). In the CMS Interoperability and Patient Access Final Rule (85 FR 25510 through 25640) and the CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule (89 FR 8758 through 8988), CMS required impacte ). In the CMS Interoperability and Patient Access Final Rule (85 FR 25510 through 25640) and the CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule (89 FR 8758 through 8988), CMS required impacted payers to use certain standards and implementation guides, as well as the USCDI standard, which ASTP/ONC has adopted on behalf of HHS in 45 CFR 170.215 and 45 CFR 170.213 respectively. Specifically, CMS finalized technical requirements for the following APIs: Patient Access API (85 FR 25558 through 25559, 89 FR 8784 through 8787), Provider Access API (89 FR 8817 through 8820), Payer- to-Payer API (89 FR 8855 through 8856), Prior Authorization API (89 FR 8897 through 8901), and the Provider Directory API (85 FR 25563 through 25564). In the CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule, CMS also recommended a number of implementation guides that may be used to support effective implementation of the required payer APIs (89 FR 8945). (ii) Background on Electronic Prior Authorization In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule, we stated that prior authorization processes 457 have contributed significantly to patient and provider burden, for instance, through delays experienced by patients and on In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule, we stated that prior authorization processes 457 have contributed significantly to patient and provider burden, for instance, through delays experienced by patients and clinicians as they seek to satisfy the requirements associated with prior authorization rules set by payers (89 FR 63587).458 ONC’s Strategy on Reducing Regulatory and Administrative Burden Relating to the Use of Health IT and EHRs,459 released in 2020, identified challenges associated with the prior authorization process faced by patients and healthcare providers, including: (i) difficulty in determining whether an item or service requires prior authorization; (ii) difficulty in determining payer-specific prior authorization requirements for those items and services; (iii) inefficient use of 457 Generally defined as rules imposed by healthcare payers that require approval for a medication, procedure, device, or other medical service be obtained prior to payment for the item or service. 458 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Strategy on Reducing Regulatory and Administrative Burden Relating to the Use of Health IT and EHRs [PDF file]. February 2020. R 8 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Strategy on Reducing Regulatory and Administrative Burden Relating to the Use of Health IT and EHRs [PDF file]. February 2020. Retrieved from https://www.healthit.gov/ sites/default/files/page/2020-02/BurdenReport_ 0.pdf. 459 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Strategy on Reducing Regulatory and Administrative Burden Relating to the Use of Health IT and EHRs [PDF file]. February 2020. Retrieved from https://www.healthit.gov/ sites/default/files/page/2020-02/BurdenReport_ 0.pdf. provider and staff time to navigate communications channels such as fax, telephone, and various web portals; and (iv) unpredictable and lengthy amounts of time to receive payer decisions. The Strategy noted that payers and health IT developers have addressed prior authorization in an ad hoc manner with interfaces that reflect individual payer technology considerations, payer lines of business, and customer-specific constraints. We described a 2022 physician survey conducted by the American Medical Association that demonstrated significant negative impacts associated with the current prior authorization specific constraints. We described a 2022 physician survey conducted by the American Medical Association that demonstrated significant negative impacts associated with the current prior authorization and beneficiary information exchange processes.460 Nearly 94 percent of physicians reported care delays associated with prior authorization, and 80 percent reported that issues related to the prior authorization process can sometimes lead to treatment abandonment. In addition, survey respondents reported that physicians and their staff spend almost two business days each week completing prior authorizations, with nearly 35 percent of physicians retaining staff who work exclusively on prior authorizations. Today, hospitals and provider practices widely continue to use telephone and fax to conduct prior authorization processes. According to the Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, only 28 percent of 228 million prior authorization contacts were fully electronic in 2022.461 In 2020, ONC charged the HITAC to establish the Intersection of Clinical and Administrative Data (ICAD) Task Force to produce information and considerations related to the merging of clinical and administrative d charged the HITAC to establish the Intersection of Clinical and Administrative Data (ICAD) Task Force to produce information and considerations related to the merging of clinical and administrative data for electronic prior authorization. The ICAD Task Force’s final report,462 approved in November 2020, recommended that ONC work with CMS, other federal actors, and standards development organizations to ‘‘establish standards for prior authorization workflows.’’ Specifically, the Task Force recommended that entities should develop API specifications ‘‘such that the authorization and related documentation may be triggered in workflow in the relevant workflow system where the triggering event for the authorization is created.’’ In January 2021, ONC published an RFI titled ‘‘Request for Information: 460 https://www.ama-assn.org/practice- management/prior-authorization/prior- authorization-research-reports. 461 https://www.caqh.org/sites/default/files/2023- 05/2022-caqh-index-report.pdf. 462 https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/ facas/ICAD_TF_FINAL_Report_HITAC_2020-11-06_ 508_0.pdf. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00629 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04 2 https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/ facas/ICAD_TF_FINAL_Report_HITAC_2020-11-06_ 508_0.pdf. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00629 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37164 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations Electronic Prior Authorization Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria’’ to seek input from the public regarding electronic prior authorization standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria that could be adopted within the ONC Health IT Certification Program (87 FR 3475). ONC received approximately 130 responses to this RFI from a wide range of entities. Comments on the RFI broadly supported the incorporation of electronic prior authorization capabilities within the Certification Program, while highlighting concerns about the current readiness and maturity of available implementation specifications to support these capabilities. Commenters also provided input on how certification criteria related to electronic prior authorization should be structured and how cert le implementation specifications to support these capabilities. Commenters also provided input on how certification criteria related to electronic prior authorization should be structured and how certification criteria should address other federal requirements around the use of standards for electronic prior authorization transactions. Finally, commenters provided input on the benefits of improving electronic prior authorization for patients, providers, health IT developers and payers, as well as potential challenges associated with implementation. ONC also charged the HITAC to establish a Task Force in order to provide input and recommendations in response to the RFI; the Task Force’s recommendations were approved and submitted to ONC on March 10, 2022.463 We noted that the proposals in section III.B.20. of the HTI–2 Proposed Rule would implement several recommendations from the Task Force, specifically recommendations to: • Create a suite of electronic prior authorization health IT certification criteria for health IT systems supporting both providers and payers that can enable health IT developers to certify to one or more specific functional capabilities that together, across p ertification criteria for health IT systems supporting both providers and payers that can enable health IT developers to certify to one or more specific functional capabilities that together, across participating health IT systems, enable the full electronic prior authorization workflow. • Ensure new certification criteria for electronic prior authorization provide for health IT systems that perform prior authorization on behalf of payers to ensure that their solutions are compliant to consensus-based standards for electronic prior authorization and are able to send and receive information needed to meet the prior authorization business case. • Work with the Da Vinci Project and key healthcare stakeholders (for example, providers, developers, patients) to develop appropriate health IT certification criteria that incorporate key functional capabilities for prior authorization. • Ensure certification requirements that allow a FHIR-enabled process for prior authorization transactions do not require translation to X12. • Prioritize criteria based on the Da Vinci Prior Authorization Support (PAS) IG that allow data, C–CDA, or FHIR documents to be provided in a FHIR construct. (c) Standa ot require translation to X12. • Prioritize criteria based on the Da Vinci Prior Authorization Support (PAS) IG that allow data, C–CDA, or FHIR documents to be provided in a FHIR construct. (c) Standards and Certification Criteria for Electronic Prior Authorization (i) Implementation Specifications for Prior Authorization We proposed to adopt a ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(34) to establish requirements for Health IT Modules that can be used to facilitate a provider’s request of coverage information and request for a prior authorization decision. We stated that this certification criterion would help support real-time access for providers to payer approval requirements, documentation, and rules at point of service, as well as enable providers to request and receive authorization. We noted that technology certified to these capabilities would help to automate and streamline the prior authorization process for healthcare providers and payers, ensure treatment decisions are made in a timely fashion, avoid delays in care, and reduce administrative burden on healthcare providers and payers associated with assembling and reviewing requi ayers, ensure treatment decisions are made in a timely fashion, avoid delays in care, and reduce administrative burden on healthcare providers and payers associated with assembling and reviewing required documentation. We proposed to adopt three HL7 FHIR Da Vinci Burden Reduction IGs in 45 CFR 170.215(j) as the basis for the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API— provider’’ criterion and incorporate these IGs by reference in 45 CFR 170.299(g): • HL7 FHIR Da Vinci—Coverage Requirements Discovery (CRD) Implementation Guide, Version 2.0.1— STU 2 (proposed in 45 CFR 170.215(j)(1)(i)).464 • HL7 FHIR Da Vinci— Documentation Templates and Rules (DTR) Implementation Guide, Version 2.0.1—STU 2 (proposed in 45 CFR 170.215(j)(2)(i)).465 • HL7 FHIR Da Vinci—Prior Authorization Support (PAS) Implementation Guide, Version 2.0.1— 463 https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/ page/2022-03/2022-03-10_ePA_RFI_ Recommendations_Report_Signed_508.pdf. 464 See https://hl7.org/fhir/us/davinci-crd/STU2/. 465 See https://hl7.org/fhir/us/davinci-dtr/STU2/. STU 2 (proposed in 45 CFR 170.215(j)(3)(i)).466 Taken together, these implementation specifications support a comprehensive workflow for conducting elec See https://hl7.org/fhir/us/davinci-dtr/STU2/. STU 2 (proposed in 45 CFR 170.215(j)(3)(i)).466 Taken together, these implementation specifications support a comprehensive workflow for conducting electronic prior authorization transactions. These specifications are based upon HL7® FHIR® Release 4, Version 4.0.1: R4. In concert with CMS, ASTP/ONC has led or participated in a variety of activities related to monitoring and evaluating the standards and implementation specifications identified in the proposed rule, utilizing available mechanisms for gathering input on these standards from a wide variety of experts. The Da Vinci Project 467 is a private sector initiative that brings together payers, health IT developers, providers, and other public participants to facilitate the definition, design, and creation of use case specific reference implementations of solutions based upon the HL7 FHIR platform that involve managing and sharing clinical and administrative data between industry partners. Because the Da Vinci Project is aligned with HL7, solutions developed through the project may become industry standards. The Da Vinci Project’s use case requirements, test scenarios, and test dat ers. Because the Da Vinci Project is aligned with HL7, solutions developed through the project may become industry standards. The Da Vinci Project’s use case requirements, test scenarios, and test data, as well as the resulting implementation guides and reference implementations, are available without licensing requirements (89 FR 63581). We proposed to adopt these implementation specifications under PHSA section 3004 and make them available for HHS use. We further noted that the proposed certification criterion included proposals that required the use of at least one version of each of the implementation specifications adopted in 45 CFR 170.215(j)(1)–(3) (89 FR 63588). We noted that if we were to adopt subsequent versions of the implementation specifications in 45 CFR 170.215(j)(1) (CRD IG), (j)(2) (DTR IG), and (j)(3) (PAS IG), respectively, proposals that require the use of at least one implementation specification adopted in one of these locations would enable health IT developers to use any version adopted at the specified location, unless we specified an adoption ‘‘expiration’’ date which indicates a certain version of the specification may no longer be used after that date ( to use any version adopted at the specified location, unless we specified an adoption ‘‘expiration’’ date which indicates a certain version of the specification may no longer be used after that date (89 FR 63588). The following is a summary of the comments received on the HTI–2 Proposed Rule and our responses: Comment: Many commenters supported our proposals to adopt 466 See https://hl7.org/fhir/us/davinci-pas/STU2/. 467 For more information about the Da Vinci Project, please visit https://www.hl7.org/about/ davinci/. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00630 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37165 certification criteria and implementation specifications for health IT to enable electronic prior authorization. In general, commenters believed that electronic prior authorization activities enabled by technology meeting the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ criterion would address burdensome manual prior authorization processes, and that widespread adoption of such technology solutions ha chnology meeting the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ criterion would address burdensome manual prior authorization processes, and that widespread adoption of such technology solutions has the potential to reduce the time that clinicians and other staff must spend on administrative tasks related to prior authorization. Commenters further stated that finalization of this criteria would be an important mechanism for ensuring health IT developers include such functionality in certified health IT products. Response: We thank commenters for their support of the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ criterion. We agree with commenters about the benefits that may be realized from incorporating standardized electronic prior authorization capabilities into their workflows. Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about the implementation challenges and other burdens that healthcare providers may experience implementing certified health IT for electronic prior authorization. Commenters noted that while under-resourced healthcare providers are impacted by the administrative burden associated with current prior authorization processes, such practices would also bear ation. Commenters noted that while under-resourced healthcare providers are impacted by the administrative burden associated with current prior authorization processes, such practices would also bear significant burden associated with implementation of new prior authorization functionality and associated workflows. Commenters urged ASTP/ONC and HHS to ensure any new functionality would be available at an affordable cost for small practices. Response: We appreciate commenters’ concerns about the potential for additional burden associated with adopting certified health IT for electronic prior authorization. We acknowledge that healthcare providers may incur costs acquiring health IT certified to these new criteria, and that integrating this new functionality may require development of new workflows and updates to existing workflows. However, we believe that by automating the prior authorization process providers of all sizes, but especially small practices, will benefit greatly from resource and administrative burden reductions. We refer readers to regulatory impact analysis in Appendix A section I.G.13. of this final rule for detailed discussion of costs and benefits of our finalize urce and administrative burden reductions. We refer readers to regulatory impact analysis in Appendix A section I.G.13. of this final rule for detailed discussion of costs and benefits of our finalized policies. While ASTP/ ONC does not have authority to limit the costs of adopting new Health IT Modules, including for small practices, health IT developers must make information about material types of costs and limitations available for their products via the Certified Health IT Product List (CHPL) website.468 Comment: Many commenters did not support our proposals to adopt the Da Vinci CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs and incorporate them into the ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ criterion. Commenters stated that the implementation guides are not mature enough to be included as required standards at this time and that additional iterations of the proposed versions of the implementation guides would be needed before they were ready for adoption. Commenters stated that the implementation guides reflect the contributions of a limited group of industry partners, are not well-grounded in real-world use at this time, and have not undergone sufficient testing and piloting. Commenters also noted t reflect the contributions of a limited group of industry partners, are not well-grounded in real-world use at this time, and have not undergone sufficient testing and piloting. Commenters also noted that there are a number of unresolved issues in the current versions of the implementation guides and provided examples of these issues. For instance, a commenter noted that the current versions of the IGs do not account for the full complexity of electronic prior authorization interactions focusing on binary responses and failing to account for less common scenarios that may arise in conducting these activities. Another commenter stated that the three IGs lack common data definitions, which may impede these functions from successfully working together as intended, and identified issues with a foundational specification which informs these IGs that may introduce unnecessary complexity as part of the workflow. Response: We acknowledge the concerns raised by commenters regarding the maturity and readiness of the Da Vinci CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs. However, we emphasize the significant progress these guides represent in addressing longstanding challenges in a primarily manual prior authorizati and readiness of the Da Vinci CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs. However, we emphasize the significant progress these guides represent in addressing longstanding challenges in a primarily manual prior authorization process. We believe adoption of these IGs, as proposed, is a critical step toward reducing administrative burden and improving care delivery with interoperable prior authorization workflows. Further, we note that iterations and refinements to the versions of CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs we proposed in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule have now been balloted by HL7 and will be available for use in the Certification Program, as described in more detail later in this section, via the Standards Version Advancement Process (SVAP).469 These refinements and enhancements address common data definitions by supporting USCDI v3 and better support the full complexity of prior authorization workflows. While acknowledging commenters’ concerns about the maturity of the proposed versions of the CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs (versions 2.0.1), and the existence of unresolved issues in the proposed versions of the guides, it is important to note that these guides continue to evolve and improve based on real-world implementati ersions 2.0.1), and the existence of unresolved issues in the proposed versions of the guides, it is important to note that these guides continue to evolve and improve based on real-world implementation feedback. For example, since publication of the HTI–2 Proposed Rule in August 2024, HL7 has published Version 2.1.0 of all three IGs. These updates have addressed gaps identified during early implementations and enhanced functionality to improve the interoperability of data necessary to enable electronic prior authorization workflows. Notably: • HL7 FHIR Da Vinci—Coverage Requirements Discovery (CRD) Implementation Guide, Version 2.1.0— STU 2.1 470 includes more than 20 changes setting clearer expectations for handling failure states, correcting contexts for order-dispatch, clarifying expectations for mandatory hook support, and setting expectations for endpoints and endpoint discovery. • HL7 FHIR Da Vinci— Documentation Templates and Rules (DTR) Implementation Guide, Version 2.1.0—STU 2.1 471 includes more than 30 updates from Version 2.0.1, such as aligning endpoint discovery language with CRD IG requirements, addressing CMS enforcement discretion regarding the use of X12, and req 2.1 471 includes more than 30 updates from Version 2.0.1, such as aligning endpoint discovery language with CRD IG requirements, addressing CMS enforcement discretion regarding the use of X12, and requiring DTR Clients to appropriately manage access to data that is sensitive per policy and regulatory requirements when responding to queries from a DTR application. • HL7 FHIR Da Vinci—Prior Authorization Support (PAS) Implementation Guide, Version 2.1.0— STU 2.1 472 includes more than 50 updates, including: clarifying how to cancel an entire Prior Auth Claim instead of cancelling individual items, addressing concerns about required fields that are specified in the license restricted X12 TRN03 guide (which is 469 See Standards Version Advancement Process (SVAP): https://www.healthit.gov/topic/standards- version-advancement-process-svap. 470 See https://hl7.org/fhir/us/davinci-crd/ STU2.1/. 471 See https://hl7.org/fhir/us/davinci-dtr/ STU2.1/. 472 See https://hl7.org/fhir/us/davinci-pas/ 468 See: https://chpl.healthit.gov/#/search. STU2.1/. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00631 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 68 See: https://chpl.healthit.gov/#/search. STU2.1/. VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00631 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37166 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations referenced within the PAS IG), and updating the guide to be compliant with US Core v3.1.0, v6.0.1, and v7.0.0. As noted previously, HL7 has iterated new versions for each IG in the months since we first proposed to adopt these IGs, and we anticipate future iterations to continue. We intend to continue to monitor the evolution of the standards and make subsequent versions of the adopted IGs available for use in the Certification Program when appropriate via the SVAP as discussed further in section IX.B.4.b.(6)(e) of this final rule. Through SVAP, developers of certified health IT will have the flexibility to use subsequent versions of these IGs in Health IT Modules certified to 45 CFR 170.315(g)(31), (g)(32) and (g)(33) and maintain their certification status based on use of an updated version of the adopted standard. This approach balances the need for immediate a tified to 45 CFR 170.315(g)(31), (g)(32) and (g)(33) and maintain their certification status based on use of an updated version of the adopted standard. This approach balances the need for immediate action to address prior authorization inefficiencies by ensuring certification is available upon the effective date of this final rule, while continuing to support use of the best available standard on an ongoing basis. We note that CMS has finalized similar provisions allowing impacted payers to use updated versions of HHS-adopted standards when implementing CMS’ payer API requirements under certain circumstances, including standards approved for use by the National Coordinator under SVAP (see 89 FR 8935 for more details). Together, these policies enable both providers and payers to use health IT aligned with the most recent and advanced standards for purposes related to prior authorization. The assertion that the IGs reflect contributions from a limited group of industry partners overlooks the collaborative nature of the IGs’ development. The HL7 Da Vinci Project has engaged a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including providers, payers, and health IT developers, to ensure the guides a s the collaborative nature of the IGs’ development. The HL7 Da Vinci Project has engaged a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including providers, payers, and health IT developers, to ensure the guides address real-world needs.473 The guides are grounded in real-world experiences and have been tested in both controlled settings and in real world pilot implementations, demonstrating their applicability and value.474 We encourage all interested parties to participate in the processes 473 See Da Vinci Project Members at https:// confluence.hl7.org/spaces/DVP/pages/144978522/ Da+Vinci+Project+Members. 474 See HIPAA Exception Pilot Report at https:// confluence.hl7.org/download/attachments/ 113675673/HL7%20Da%20Vinci%20 Exception%20Report_Final%20(June% 2025%2C%202024).pdf? version=1&modificationDate= 1731382945836&api=v2. managed by HL7 to continue to evolve and improve these IGs. Comment: As an alternative to adopting and requiring use of the Da Vinci CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs, commenters recommended that ASTP/ ONC finalize a functional criterion and recommend, but not require, use of the proposed IGs. Commenters pointed to the CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization final rule, in whic ended that ASTP/ ONC finalize a functional criterion and recommend, but not require, use of the proposed IGs. Commenters pointed to the CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization final rule, in which CMS recommended the use of the Da Vinci CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs, as well as other IGs, but did not require their use (89 FR 8937). Commenters expressed concern that requiring use of the current versions of the IGs would not allow industry the flexibility to address issues likely to be corrected or further developed in future versions, and that developers would be ‘‘locked’’ into an immature version of the IG. While commenters acknowledged that the SVAP is intended to provide flexibility to health IT developers who wish to use subsequent versions of a standard approved by ASTP/ONC within certified Health IT Modules, some commenters believed that the SVAP would not be rapid enough to provide assurances to developers that updated versions of the Da Vinci IGs were approved for use in a timely manner. Commenters stated that this delay would create confusion for developers around knowing which version of the IG a developer must certify to. Commenters also noted that in the case of IGs in ear manner. Commenters stated that this delay would create confusion for developers around knowing which version of the IG a developer must certify to. Commenters also noted that in the case of IGs in earlier stages of development, including the Da Vinci CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs, subsequent versions may include breaking changes, and older versions may not be implementable as written. Response: We appreciate comments suggesting that we finalize a functional criterion and recommend, rather than require, the use of the Da Vinci CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs. However, we believe that adopting these IGs and requiring their use in health IT certification criteria is essential to achieving the goals of interoperability, reducing administrative burden, and streamlining the prior authorization process. While flexibility is important, the absence of required standards for prior authorization capabilities risk perpetuating the fragmentation and manual inefficiencies that have long plagued prior authorization workflows. Moreover, a functional criterion does not support interoperability or adherence to standardized capabilities. Recommending the use of IGs without requiring them would likely result in inconsi rkflows. Moreover, a functional criterion does not support interoperability or adherence to standardized capabilities. Recommending the use of IGs without requiring them would likely result in inconsistent implementations, as developers may choose different approaches to meet functional requirements. This fragmentation would undermine the goal of creating a seamless and efficient prior authorization process. As discussed in more detail in this section, we are finalizing adoption of three certification criteria at 45 CFR 170.315(g)(31)–(33) that are standards-based, rather than functional. We recognize commenters’ concerns about the timeliness of the SVAP for approving updated versions of the IGs, including those who believed SVAP may not be rapid enough to keep pace with IG development. However, we note that SVAP has a proven track record of enabling developers of certified health IT to voluntarily use newer versions of HHS-adopted standards on an annual cadence, closely mirroring HL7’s biannual balloting cycle. This cadence and process ensures that developers of certified health IT are not ‘‘locked’’ into older versions of IGs, and the voluntary nature of SVAP provides flexibility s biannual balloting cycle. This cadence and process ensures that developers of certified health IT are not ‘‘locked’’ into older versions of IGs, and the voluntary nature of SVAP provides flexibility to industry to choose whether a newer version is sufficiently mature to use in production. While we believe that commenters’ concerns that newer versions of adopted standards may include breaking changes are valid, we will consider this possibility for each standard when we determine whether a standard (including these implementation guides) should be approved for SVAP. We note that while the CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule recommended the use of the Da Vinci IGs without requiring them, our approach reflects the distinct needs of the Certification Program and reflects our goal to advance standards-based interoperability. The adoption of required IGs creates testable expectations of conformance to these IGs and ensures that all stakeholders are aligned on a common set of implementation specifications. This reduces variability in deployed technology and enhances the efficiency of prior authorization workflows. We further note that while CMS determined at the time et of implementation specifications. This reduces variability in deployed technology and enhances the efficiency of prior authorization workflows. We further note that while CMS determined at the time of the CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Proposed Rule that it was most appropriate to recommend the versions of the implementation specifications available at that time, CMS also stated that it intends to evaluate future versions of these specifications and will consider proposing to require conformance to versions of these implementation specifications in future rulemaking (89 FR 8921). While commenters’ recommendation to finalize a functional criterion and recommend the use of IGs reflects a desire for flexibility, it does not address the critical need for standardization and VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00632 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37167 interoperability in prior authorization workflows. After consideration of the comments, for this and other stated reasons, we are f . 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 37167 interoperability in prior authorization workflows. After consideration of the comments, for this and other stated reasons, we are finalizing our proposals to adopt the proposed Da Vinci CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs at 45 CFR 170.215(j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(i), and (j)(3)(i), respectively, and are incorporating them by reference in 45 CFR 170.299(g). We reiterate that SVAP provides flexibility for developers to adopt updated versions of these standards, while mechanisms for managing breaking changes ensure that the transition to newer versions is smooth and effective. We encourage stakeholders to support the further development of these IGs, as needed, through the process managed by HL7 and the Da Vinci Project. (ii) Organization of the Proposed Prior Authorization API Criteria In the January 2021 ‘‘Request for Information: Electronic Prior Authorization Standards, Implementation Specifications and Certification Criteria,’’ we requested comment on the most appropriate way to structure health IT certification criteria enabling a health care provider to conduct electronic prior authorization transactions (87 FR 3480). We received sted comment on the most appropriate way to structure health IT certification criteria enabling a health care provider to conduct electronic prior authorization transactions (87 FR 3480). We received a wide range of input on this topic with commenters noting that different types of systems, including EHRs, revenue cycle and patient management systems, and third-party applications may be responsible for different elements of the electronic prior authorization workflow. Some commenters recommended that ONC consider proposing individual criteria that map to each of the Da Vinci IGs (the CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs), which we discussed in the RFI. Other commenters suggested creating more granular certification criteria which reflect specific capabilities and key interactions within the prior authorization workflow, so that these capabilities can be implemented as stand-alone solutions to provide incremental value. The Task Force charged by the HITAC to provide a response to the January 2021 RFI also provided recommendations on this topic.475 In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63590), we proposed a single ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(34). Ho also provided recommendations on this topic.475 In the HTI–2 Proposed Rule (89 FR 63590), we proposed a single ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ certification criterion in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(34). However, we noted that existing guidance in the Certification Program could provide flexibility around the use of distinct technology products that may be utilized to perform the capabilities that were outlined in the proposed certification criterion. Specifically, we described that health IT developers are permitted to use ‘‘relied upon software’’ (76 FR 1276) to demonstrate compliance with certification criteria adopted at 45 CFR part 170, subpart C.476 Relied upon software is typically third-party software that is not developed by the health IT developer presenting its health IT for testing and certification. Relied upon software may be used to demonstrate compliance with a portion of an adopted certification criterion or an entire certification criterion. When a health IT developer relies upon software to demonstrate compliance with a certification criterion, such relied upon software must be included in the scope of the certification issued to the Health IT Module. In cases where a s upon software to demonstrate compliance with a certification criterion, such relied upon software must be included in the scope of the certification issued to the Health IT Module. In cases where a Health IT Module may be paired with multiple ‘‘relied upon software’’ products for the same capability, it must be tested with at least one such product to demonstrate compliance with a certification criterion’s requirements. Afterwards, the Health IT Module developer is permitted to list all additional ‘‘relied upon software’’ products for the same capability paired with the certified Health IT Module without having to test each one with the ONC-Authorized Testing Laboratory (ATL). A health IT developer always remains responsible for its product’s conformance to a certification criterion even when the ‘‘relied upon software’’ contributes to, or is the cause of, a non-conformity. We invited additional comments on the most appropriate way to structure the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API— provider’’ certification criterion. Specifically, we were interested in the public’s input on how organization of the proposed certification criteria would affect the ability of developers to effecti provider’’ certification criterion. Specifically, we were interested in the public’s input on how organization of the proposed certification criteria would affect the ability of developers to effectively offer certified health IT products that meet the criteria, and what impact the organization of the proposed criteria would have on customers who may already possess technology products that can be used to conduct electronic prior authorization transactions. We also requested comment on whether or to what degree existing guidance for the Certification Program, such as the relied upon software policy described previously, would address scenarios in which distinct health IT products are used to support different elements of the prior 475 https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/ page/2022-03/2022-03-10_ePA_RFI_ Recommendations_Report_Signed_508.pdf. 476 For more guidance on relied upon software, see: https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/ relieduponsoftwareguidance.pdf. authorization workflow. Finally, we invited comments on alternative approaches to organizing the ‘‘prior authorization API’’ certification criteria. Comment: Several commenters stated that combining differe ization workflow. Finally, we invited comments on alternative approaches to organizing the ‘‘prior authorization API’’ certification criteria. Comment: Several commenters stated that combining different functions under the single proposed ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ criterion, rather than allowing for modular certification of different functions, does not recognize that different systems may be involved in these transactions. They noted that the prior authorization process combines both administrative and clinical transactions depending on the step in the process. While clinical transactions may take place in EHRs, other administrative steps may take place in systems such as revenue cycle management systems. Commenters believed that by combining these functions under a single criterion, ASTP/ONC was assuming that an EHR would be performing each of the identified functions in the workflow specified in the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API—provider’’ criterion. Commenters stated that such an assumption would require combinations of products that may not exist at present, compelling collaboration among vendors in order to meet the workflow integration required for the criter d that such an assumption would require combinations of products that may not exist at present, compelling collaboration among vendors in order to meet the workflow integration required for the criterion that does not currently exist in the market. Commenters stated that there are only a small number of EHR systems currently sold with a fully integrated revenue cycle management system, and that many healthcare providers prefer to combine EHR and RCM systems from different vendors. Other commenters noted that there are currently vendors in the market that specialize in only performing certain steps included as part of the electronic prior authorization workflow reflected in the proposed IGs. As a result of these observations, several commenters recommended that ASTP/ONC separately certify Health IT Modules to the functionality represented by each of the three proposed IGs. Response: We appreciate commenters’ feedback on our proposal for a single criterion to support the functionality represented by the three proposed IGs. We acknowledge that our proposal for a single criterion assumed that most Health IT Modules would be performing all of the functions specified by the CRD, DTR, and presented by the three proposed IGs. We acknowledge that our proposal for a single criterion assumed that most Health IT Modules would be performing all of the functions specified by the CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs, and in instances where a developer of certified health IT did not support a functionality, the developer could use relied upon software. Comments received have persuaded us to revisit these assumptions and we agree that establishing multiple criteria could more effectively support a diverse VerDate Sep 2014 00:36 Aug 02, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00633 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04AUR2.SGM 04AUR2 2 S E L U R h t i w D O R P 4 4 1 S 7 W 9 K S D n o d n o m m a h k 37168 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 147 / Monday, August 4, 2025 / Rules and Regulations marketplace of developers, including those that specialize in only certain steps in the electronic prior authorization workflow. We further believe that such an approach would not inhibit certified health IT developers to support end-to-end workflows for providers as described in the CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs, as such developers could certify Health IT Module(s) to individual certification criteria reflecting different componen rt end-to-end workflows for providers as described in the CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs, as such developers could certify Health IT Module(s) to individual certification criteria reflecting different components of the prior authorization workflow. Comment: A commenter suggested that ASTP/ONC allow developers to certify to both the complete workflow and components of the workflow, at least during an initial period as healthcare providers and gain an understanding of how they will comply with the certification requirements. For instance, the commenter suggested that a developer who only offers a solution focused on the functionality represented in the CRD IG should be able to certify to a criterion reflecting this functionality, while a second developer certifying to the complete workflow reflected in the CRD, DTR, and PAS IGs should be able to obtain certification reflecting those complete capabilities. Response: We appreciate commenters’ recommendation to certify both the complete workflow and individual criteria. However, we believe that an approach which certifies the complete workflow may constrain future needs to support dynamic workflows for prior authorization. We heard from commente individual criteria. However, we believe that an approach which certifies the complete workflow may constrain future needs to support dynamic workflows for prior authorization. We heard from commenters that multiple information systems may be involved in the prior authorization process, and while we reiterate that these criteria are intended for use by care providers and healthcare delivery organizations, systems certifying to these certification criteria need not be constrained only to clinical systems. For instance, and as is described in more detail later in this section, a Health IT Module certified to the criterion we are finalizing in 45 CFR 170.315(g)(32), which is required to support the DTR IG through cross- reference to 45 CFR 170.215(j)(2), may be part of an existing, deployed information system, or it may be a standalone information system that can be integrated with an existing system. Comment: Several commenters supported our reference to the use of the ‘‘relied upon software’’ feature of the Certification Program in implementing the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API— provider’’ criterion. Commenters stated use of this flexibility would lead to cost savings and woul tware’’ feature of the Certification Program in implementing the proposed ‘‘prior authorization API— provider’’ criterion. Commenters stated use of this flexibility would lead to cost savings and would eliminate the need for developers to build solutions from the ground up. Response: We appreciate commenters’ Comment: Many commenters support for the relied upon software feature of the Certification Program. We agree this program element can support flexibility for developers to determine the best approach to developing Health IT Modules by leveraging partnerships with other vendors and products. However, we believe that this approach may be limited in its ability to support a dynamic health IT marketplace, which enables developers to certify to only those aspects of the electronic prior authorization workflow they believe best suits their circumstances. Comment: Other commenters disagreed that the ‘‘relied upon software’’ element of the Certification Program would effectively address relevant issues. Specifically, commenters stated that this aspect of the program has compelled specific vendor collaboration and combinations of products that would not have otherwise occurred, and tha elevant issues. Specifically, commenters stated that this aspect of the program has compelled specific vendor collaboration and combinations of products that would not have otherwise occurred, and that such activities may displace combinations of products that have been developed in response to customer interest. Response: We thank commenters for their views on the value of the relied upon software aspect of the Certification Program. We disagree that relied upon software has had a negative impact across the market for health IT products and services. Relied upon software has had the opposite impact by allowing developers with incomplete functionality to certify products under the Certification Program. Based on data from the CHPL as of May 1, 2025, about 60 percent of all Health IT Modules certified under the Certification Program since the 2015 Edition have used relied upon software to fulfill the requirements of one or more certification criteria. However, we agree with commenters that relied upon software may not adequately address issues discussed in the HTI–2 Proposed Rule related to this topic (89 FR 63591). For example, in scenarios where a health care provider may already