Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

HOSPITALS LARGELY 

REPORTED ADDRESSING 

REQUIREMENTS FOR EHR

CONTINGENCY PLANS

Daniel R. Levinson

Inspector General

July 2016

OEI-01-14-00570
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: HOSPITALS LARGELY REPORTED ADDRESSING 

REQUIREMENTS FOR EHR CONTINGENCY PLANS

OEI-01-14-00570

WHY WE DID THIS STUDY 

Disruptions, such as natural disasters or technical malfunctions, can make electronic health 

records (EHRs) unavailable to hospital staff. Prior OIG work found, for example, that hospitals 

experienced substantial challenges responding to the effects of Superstorm Sandy, which 

included damage to health information systems and curtailed access to patient medical records. 

More recently, cyberattacks on hospitals have similarly prevented or limited access to EHRs. 

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 

Act (HIPAA) Security Rule, which requires all covered entities to have a contingency plan for 

responding to disruptions to electronic health information systems. Contingency plans specify 

processes to recover EHR systems and access backup copies of EHR data in the event of a 

disruption. This evaluation provides information about the status of hospitals’ contingency plans 

in light of evolving threats to their electronic health information systems. 

HOW WE DID THIS STUDY 

We sent a questionnaire to a projectable sample of 400 hospitals that received Medicare incentive 

payments for using a certified EHR system as of September 2014. We asked hospitals about 

their EHR contingency plans in relation to the following: HIPAA requirements, the practices for 

contingency planning recommended by two Federal agencies, and hospitals’ experiences with 

EHR disruptions. To gain a deeper knowledge of hospital EHR contingency plans and 

experiences, we also conducted site visits at six hospitals, where we interviewed hospital staff 

and reviewed EHR contingency plans and related documents.

WHAT WE FOUND 

Almost all hospitals reported having written EHR contingency plans, and about two-thirds 

reported that their contingency plans addressed the four HIPAA requirements we reviewed, i.e., 

having a data backup plan, having a disaster recovery plan, having an emergency-mode 

operations plan, and having testing and revision procedures. Most hospitals also reported

implementing recommended practices, such as maintaining backup copies of EHR data offsite, 

supplying paper medical record forms for use when the EHR is unavailable, and training and 

testing staff on contingency plans. Over half of hospitals reported an unplanned EHR disruption,

and about a quarter of those experienced delays in patient care as a result. Finally, we found that 

OCR considers HIPAA compliance broadly and does not target EHRs when reviewing a covered 

entity’s contingency plans. 

WHAT WE CONCLUDE 

Persistent and evolving threats to electronic health information reinforce the need for EHR 

contingency plans. This review and cyberattacks that have occurred since 2014 underscore our 

previous recommendation that OCR fully implement a permanent audit program for compliance 

with HIPAA.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Objectives ....................................................................................................1

Background..................................................................................................1

Methodology................................................................................................5

Findings........................................................................................................8

Almost all hospitals reported that they had written EHR 

contingency plans, and two-thirds of hospitals reported that their 

contingency plans addressed all four HIPAA requirements that 

we reviewed .....................................................................................8

Most hospitals reported implementing recommended practices 

related to data backup and emergency-mode operations.................9

Over half of hospitals reported an unplanned EHR disruption, 

and a quarter of those experienced delays in patient care as a 

result...............................................................................................13

Hospitals reported using planned and unplanned EHR 

disruptions to improve their contingency plans and better 

prepare staff for future disruptions ................................................15

OCR does not target EHR contingency plans for review ..............15

Conclusion ................................................................................................16

Appendixes ................................................................................................17

A: Practices Recommended by NIST and ONC............................17

B: HIPAA Requirements and Practices Recommended by NIST 

and ONC for Contingency Planning..............................................18

C: Point Estimates, Confidence Intervals, and Results of 

Independent T-Tests.......................................................................19

Acknowledgments......................................................................................25
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 1

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the extent to which hospitals report that their electronic health 

record (EHR) contingency plans complied with the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). 

2. To determine the extent to which hospitals implemented recommended 

practices related to EHR contingency plans.

3. To describe hospitals’ experiences activating their EHR contingency plans.

4. To describe how Office for Civil Rights (OCR) oversight of HIPAA identified 

and addressed concerns with EHR contingency plans.

BACKGROUND

Disruptions, both planned and unplanned, may make EHRs unavailable to 

hospital clinicians and other staff for day-to-day business operations. For 

example, prior OIG work found that hospitals experienced substantial challenges 

responding to Superstorm Sandy, including damage to health information systems 

and problems accessing patients’ medical records.1

More recently, cyberattacks on hospitals have posed a new threat to EHRs. In 

2014, Boston Children’s Hospital suffered a distributed denial of service attack. 

Though no data were lost and no patient harm occurred, some of the hospital’s

systems lost Internet-based functionality. The hospital relied on its contingency 

planning and work arounds to continue operating.2 In January 2016, a hospital in 

California reported that it suffered a ransomware attack that disabled its network 

and EHR system for about a week, leading to delayed patient care and the need to 

divert patients to other facilities.3 In March 2016, MedStar Health reported a 

suspected ransomware attack that forced it to take computer systems offline 

throughout its entire system, including 10 hospitals.4,5

Planned disruptions occur when hospitals are updating or replacing hardware or 

software or conducting tests. Unplanned disruptions result from natural disasters, 

 ____________________________________________________________ 

1

 OIG, Hospital Emergency Preparedness and Response During Superstorm Sandy, 

OEI-06-13-00260 (September 2014). 

2

 Daniel J. Nigrin, “When 'Hacktivists' Target Your Hospital,” New England Journal of Medicine, 

371, 393-395 (2014). 

3

 Richard Winton, “Hollywood Hospital Pays $17,000 in Bitcoin to Hackers; FBI Investigating,”

Los Angeles Times, February 18, 2016. 

4

 John W. Cox, “MedStar Health Turns Away Patients After Likely Ransomware Cyberattack,”

Washington Post, March 29, 2016. 

5

 Ransomware is a type of malware that prevents or limits users from accessing their systems. This 

type of malware forces its victims to pay a ransom to access to their systems or retrieve their data. 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 2

power outages, technical malfunctions, or malicious actions, among other events. 

Contingency plans specify processes to recover EHR systems and access backup 

copies of EHR data in the event of a disruption.6 They also outline processes to 

minimize EHR disruptions and ensure the continuity of care when disruptions 

occur.7 Hospitals may maintain their contingency plans in a single plan or may 

describe them across multiple plans, each covering a specific unit, department, or 

information system. 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 

The HIPAA Security Rule establishes various safeguards to ensure the 

confidentiality, integrity, and availability of individuals’ electronic protected 

health information. EHRs are one of many applications that store such

information. Others include computerized order-entry systems for physicians; 

claims processing applications; and radiology, pharmacy, and laboratory systems. 

The HIPAA Security Rule applies both to covered entities (i.e., health plans, 

health care clearinghouses, and most health care providers) and their business 

associates (generally, vendors or contractors that store or transmit electronic 

protected health information).8, 9

HIPAA Requirements for Contingency Planning 

The HIPAA Security Rule requires that each covered entity have a contingency 

plan for responding to events that disrupt systems containing electronic health 

information.10 HIPAA requirements are not prescriptive in how covered entities 

develop and use contingency plans. However, contingency plans must include 

policies and procedures in the following five areas: 

 a data backup plan for creating and storing copies of electronic health 

information (required); 

 a disaster recovery plan for restoring lost data (required); 

 an emergency mode operations plan for continuing critical business 

processes during emergencies (required); 

 testing and revising of contingency plans (addressable); and 

 ____________________________________________________________ 

6

 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), SAFER SelfAssessment Guide: Contingency Planning (January 2014). Accessed at 

http://www.healthit.gov/safer/sites/safer/files/guides/safer_contingencyplanning_sg003_form_0.p

df on Nov. 5, 2014. 

7

 Ibid. 

8 45 CFR pts. 160 and 164, subpts. A, C, and E. 

9

 The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) of 2009 

further strengthened the civil enforcement of the HIPAA rules. HITECH § 13410.

10 45 CFR § 164.308(a)(7). 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 3

 an applications and criticality assessment (addressable).11

Recommended Practices for Contingency Planning

Two Federal agencies have recommended practices for contingency planning. 

The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) offers a 

comprehensive guide on contingency planning for information systems. The 

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) 

provides a contingency planning guide with recommendations specific to EHRs.

NIST’s guide on contingency planning outlines a seven-step process to develop 

and maintain contingency plans for information systems. The guide includes 

numerous approaches for recovering information system services after a 

disruption.12 Although NIST guidance applies only to Federal information 

systems, it is an accepted source of recommended practices by the wider 

information-systems industry. 

ONC produced a series of Safety Assurance Factors for EHR Resilience (SAFER) 

guides to help hospitals mitigate patient-safety risks related to EHRs; one 

addresses contingency planning. Unlike NIST’s guide, which applies generally to 

information systems, ONC tailored its guide to hospitals’ EHR systems. ONC’s 

contingency planning guide describes 10 recommended practices for minimizing 

and reducing the effects of EHR disruptions. It also provides a rationale and 

advice for implementing those recommendations.13

For example, the HIPAA requirement for a data backup plan states that a covered 

entity or business associate must “establish and implement procedures to create 

and maintain retrievable exact copies of electronic protected health information,” 

yet it does not offer specific practices for meeting that requirement.14 However, 

the NIST- and ONC-recommended practices that align with this requirement offer 

specific actions, such as maintaining backup copies, storing backup data offsite, 

and having a read-only system. See Appendix A for NIST’s and ONC’s 

recommended practices for contingency planning and Appendix B for a table that 

shows how they relate to HIPAA requirements.

 ____________________________________________________________ 

11

“Addressable” implementation specifications provide covered entities additional flexibility in 

determining whether these are reasonable and appropriate security measures to apply within their 

particular security frameworks. 

12 NIST, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems (May 2010).

13 ONC, SAFER Self-Assessment: Contingency Planning (January 2014). 

14 45 CFR § 164.308(a)(7)(ii)(A). 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 4

Office for Civil Rights Enforcement of the HIPAA Security Rule

Since 2009, OCR has been responsible for enforcing the HIPAA Security Rule.15 

OCR enforces and administers the HIPAA Security Rule in several ways: 

 investigating complaints, which could result in corrective action, payment 

of a resolution amount, or civil money penalties; 

 performing compliance reviews in response to breach notifications or 

other events; and

 providing education and outreach. 16

The HITECH Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

to perform periodic audits of covered entities’ and business associates’ 

compliance with HIPAA.17 OCR made progress toward meeting the requirement 

by launching a pilot audit program and evaluating the program’s results.18 In 

March 2016, OCR announced that phase 2 of that program was underway. In 

these audits, OCR will review the policies and procedures adopted and employed 

to meet selected standards and implementation specifications of the Privacy, 

Security, and Breach Notification Rules.19

Related Office of Inspector General Work 

In 2015, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) released two reports as part of its 

body of work on the security of health information. One report found that OCR 

investigated possible noncompliance with privacy standards primarily in response 

to complaints and had not fully implemented the audit program required by the 

HITECH Act to proactively identify possible noncompliance by covered entities.

20

 The second report found that OCR investigated all large breaches, as required 

by its policy, but it did not record small-breach information in its case tracking 

system, limiting its ability to track and identify covered entities with multiple 

small breaches.21 Those reports made a number of recommendations to OCR,

 ____________________________________________________________ 

15 In 2003, HHS delegated the authority to enforce the HIPAA Security Rule to the Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). In 2009, it transferred this responsibility to OCR. 

16 OCR Enforcement of Privacy and Security Rules. Accessed at http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/forprofessionals/compliance-enforcement/enforcement-process/index.html on December 21, 2015. 

17 HITECH Act, §§ 13411. 

18 OCR, Audit Program. Accessed at http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/complianceenforcement/audit/ on March 10, 2016. 

19 OCR, Audit Program. Accessed at http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/complianceenforcement/audit/index.html on June 2, 2016. 

20 OIG, OCR Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Covered Entities’ Compliance With the HIPAA 

Privacy Standards, OEI-09-10-00510 (September. 2015). 

21 OIG, OCR Should Strengthen Its Followup of Breaches of Patient Health Information Reported 

by Covered Entities, OEI-09-10-00511 (September 2015). 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 5

including that it fully implement a permanent audit program, improve its case 

tracking system, and expand education and outreach.

In 2014, an OIG evaluation found that most hospitals experienced substantial 

challenges in responding to Superstorm Sandy, including damage to health 

information systems and problems accessing patient medical records. Hospitals 

reported that their prior emergency planning was valuable during the storm, but 

that they subsequently revised their plans as a result of lessons learned.22

METHODOLOGY

Scope

This inspection is limited to contingency plans for protected electronic health 

information stored in hospitals’ EHRs. We limited our population to hospitals 

that have received EHR incentive payments from CMS to ensure that hospitals 

had begun using EHRs to record and provide care. Our evaluation used four 

HIPAA-required criteria as well as NIST- and ONC-recommended practices that 

we determined were relevant and appropriate to hospitals’ EHR systems. 

Although HIPAA requires hospitals to include criticality assessments in their 

contingency plans, we did not ask about these assessments because we focused on 

one information system—EHRs—that we presume to be critical. Covered entities 

are not required to implement recommended practices from NIST and ONC to be 

compliant with the HIPAA Security Rule. 

Data Sources

Sample Selection: We used CMS’s National Level Repository database to 

identify all hospitals that received Medicare incentive payments for using a 

certified EHR as of September 2014 (3,949 hospitals). We then stratified our 

population by hospital size, using bed count data from CMS’s Certification and 

Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting (CASPER) system. The first stratum 

included 1,221 hospitals with 50 or fewer beds (small hospitals). The second 

stratum included 2,728 hospitals with more than 50 beds (large hospitals). From 

this population, we randomly selected 200 hospitals from each stratum for a total 

sample size of 400.

Hospital Questionnaire: We administered an online questionnaire to our sampled 

hospitals between May and July 2015 to learn whether hospitals had contingency 

plans for their EHR systems, as required by HIPAA. Because HIPAA 

requirements do not prescribe how providers should meet the requirements for 

contingency planning, we asked hospitals whether they implemented practices 

 ____________________________________________________________ 

22 OIG, Hospital Emergency Preparedness and Response During Superstorm Sandy, OEI-06-13-

00260 (Sept. 2014). 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 6

recommended by NIST and ONC for EHRs. We used this information to learn 

how hospitals were carrying out contingency planning and to help substantiate 

their self-reported HIPAA compliance. The questionnaire also asked about 

hospitals’ experiences activating their contingency plans in the year preceding our 

questionnaire. We obtained an 86-percent overall weighted response rate. The 

response rate for small hospitals was 84 percent and the response rate for large 

hospitals was 87 percent. We analyzed the questionnaire results as a whole and 

by strata. We also determined whether the difference in the point estimates were 

statistically significant between strata by using independent group t-tests. See 

Appendix C for point estimates, 95 percent confidence intervals, and results of 

these statistical tests.

Hospital Site Visits: To further our understanding of EHR contingency plans, we 

chose six hospitals for site visits on the basis of geographic diversity, bed count, 

and experience activating their contingency plans, as reported in their 

questionnaire responses. While onsite, we interviewed hospital staff 

knowledgeable about their hospitals’ EHR contingency plans, including the Chief 

Information Officer, Chief Technology Officer, Director of Information 

Technology (IT), Chief Information Security Officer, facilities managers, IT 

analysts, and nursing informaticists.23 We reviewed the hospitals’ EHR 

contingency plans and related documentation such as reports assessing testing and 

training for those plans. We conducted these site visits in June and July 2015.

OCR Interviews: We interviewed OCR staff about their policies and procedures 

for investigations and compliance reviews. We also asked staff about the status of 

the HIPAA audit program. 

Limitations

Our analysis used self-reported data from hospitals. We did not independently 

verify their responses. We did not require hospitals to submit copies of their 

contingency plans to support their questionnaire responses, for several reasons. 

For example, hospitals may not consolidate contingency plans into a single 

document; a hospital may maintain plans for each unit, department, or 

information system. We also note that hospitals that were not compliant with 

HIPAA contingency planning requirements may have been less likely to respond 

to our questionnaire. 

 ____________________________________________________________ 

23 Nursing informatics is the specialty that integrates nursing science with multiple 

information-management and analytical sciences to identify, define, manage, and communicate 

data, information, knowledge, and wisdom in nursing practice. Accessed at 

http://www.himss.org/resourcelibrary/TopicList.aspx?MetaDataID=767 on June 2, 2016. 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 7

Standards

This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection 

and Evaluation issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency.
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 8

FINDINGS

Almost all hospitals reported that they had written EHR 

contingency plans, and about two-thirds of hospitals 

reported that their contingency plans addressed all four 

HIPAA requirements that we reviewed

Ninety-five percent of hospitals reported that the written policies and procedures 

in their EHR contingency plans specify how to respond to EHR disruptions.24 

The other 5 percent of hospitals reported that they did not have EHR contingency 

plans. Some of the hospitals without contingency plans noted in their responses 

that they were developing contingency plans at the time of our questionnaire 

because they had only recently adopted EHR systems. Other hospitals noted that 

they had implemented practices related to contingency plans but did not document 

those practices in policies or procedures. 

Most hospitals’ contingency plans addressed three of the four specific HIPAA 

requirements to have a data backup plan, a disaster recovery plan, and an 

emergency mode operations plan (see Table 1). Less than three-quarters of 

hospitals reported that their EHR contingency plans or equivalent alternative 

plans addressed testing and revision procedures. HIPAA allows hospitals to 

address testing and revision in their EHR contingency plans or in an equivalent 

alternative.25 That may explain why fewer hospitals addressed it in their plans. 

Sixty-eight percent of hospitals’ contingency plans addressed all four HIPAA 

requirements.

 Table 1. Hospitals That Reported Having Written Contingency Plans Addressing 

 HIPAA Requirements 

HIPAA Requirement*

Percentage 

of 

Hospitals

Data backup plan 83%

Disaster recovery plan 95%

Emergency mode operations plan 95%

Testing and revision procedures 73%

Source: OIG analysis of hospitals’ responses to EHR contingency plan questionnaire, 2015.

 * The HIPAA requirement of criticality assessment procedures was outside the scope of this evaluation and not 

 included in this analysis.

 ____________________________________________________________ 

24 The scope of our analysis is limited to hospitals that received Medicare incentive payments for 

using a certified EHR as of September 2014. 

25 45 CFR § 164.306(d)(3). 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 9

Large hospitals were more likely to report having a written EHR contingency plan 

than small hospitals (see Appendix C for details).

Most hospitals reported implementing recommended 

practices related to data backup and emergency mode 

operations

Hospitals reported taking actions to implement practices recommended by NIST 

and ONC for each of the four HIPAA requirements for contingency plans that we 

reviewed: data backup, disaster recovery, emergency mode operations, and testing 

and revision. Recommended practices related to backing up, storing, and 

maintaining data; using paper records; and having alternative power sources (e.g., 

generators) were among the most commonly implemented (reported by 90-100 

percent of hospitals). The recommended practices of NIST and ONC are not 

required under the HIPAA Security Rule, but they are sources of best practices 

relied upon by government and industry.

For certain recommended practices, the percentage of hospitals reporting having 

implemented them sometimes exceeded the percentage of hospitals reporting 

having written contingency plans. This may be because hospitals carry out certain 

recommended practices, but not under a formal contingency plan. For example, in 

our questionnaire, two hospitals explained that although they did not have detailed, 

written EHR contingency plans, each department has processes it follows in the 

event of a disruption to the EHR system.

Data Backup: 

During EHR disruptions, hospitals rely on backup copies to restore EHR systems 

with minimal data loss. Backup copies also allow clinical staff to view EHR data 

when they cannot access their primary EHR system. 

Nearly all hospitals reported that they maintained backup copies of their EHR 

data. Of the hospitals that maintained backup copies, almost all reported

implementing the recommended practice to back up data at least once per day. 

Hospitals may rely on multiple methods to back up data. For example, one 

hospital we visited told us that it replicated data on a secondary server 

continuously and backed up data to media―either a tape or disk―every 4 hours. 

Just over half of hospitals reported that they had read-only systems that display 

backup EHR data. Hospitals we visited told us that during EHR disruptions, staff 

may access read-only systems on dedicated computer terminals or through icons 

that information technology (IT) staff enable on normal computer workstations. 

However, only 32 percent of hospitals reported that their read-only system was 

visually differentiated from their fully operational system. These visual clues are 

intended to help staff instantly recognize that the hospital has activated its 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 10

contingency plan. See Table 2 for the recommended practices that hospitals 

reported implementing for data backup. 

 Table 2: Hospitals That Reported Implementing Recommended Practices for Data 

 Backup

Recommended Practice from NIST and ONC

Percentage 

of 

Hospitals

Maintain backup copies 99%

Store backup data offsite 92%

Back up data daily, or more frequently 91%

Have a read-only EHR system * 57%

Visually differentiate read-only system * 32%

 Source: OIG analysis of hospitals’ responses to EHR contingency plan questionnaire, 2015.

 * Indicates that large hospitals are more likely to include the recommended practice than small hospitals.

Disaster Recovery: Hospitals can mitigate technology failures by having duplicate 

EHR hardware at an alternate site. Hospitals can also minimize EHR disruptions 

by duplicating their Internet connections. 

About three-quarters of hospitals reported having alternate sites, and more than

half implemented the recommended practice of having “warm” or “hot” sites to 

operate their EHR systems when their primary EHR systems malfunction.26 

Almost half of hospitals with alternate sites reported that they can transfer EHR 

operations within the recommended 8 hours. One hospital that we visited told us 

that it requires a formal decision process before transferring to an alternate site. 

This hospital reported that it took about 2 hours to transfer to its alternate site and 

about 2 hours to switch back to the primary EHR system. Only about a quarter of 

hospitals reported testing their alternate systems at least every 3 months. See 

Table 3 for the recommended practices that hospitals reported implementing for 

disaster recovery. 

 ____________________________________________________________ 

26 A “hot” site is an alternate facility appropriately sized to support EHR system requirements and 

configured with the necessary system hardware, supporting infrastructure, and support personnel. 

A “warm” site is a partially equipped alternate office space that contains some or all of the EHR 

system hardware, software, telecommunications, and power sources. A “cold” site is an alternate 

facility with adequate space and infrastructure (electric power, telecommunication connections, 

and environmental controls) to support EHR system recovery activities. 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 11

 

 Table 3: Hospitals That Reported Implementing Recommended Practices for 

 Disaster Recovery

Recommended Practice from NIST and ONC

Percentage 

of 

Hospitals

Determine a strategy to replace damaged equipment 87%

Have at least two Internet paths * 78%

Have at least two Internet providers * 67%

Have a “warm” or “hot” alternate site * 56%

Transfer operations to the alternate site within 8 hours * 46%

Locate the alternate site 50 miles from the primary site 31%

Test the alternate site at least quarterly 25%

Source: OIG analysis of hospitals’ responses to EHR contingency plan questionnaire, 2015.

 * Indicates that large hospitals are more likely to include the recommended practice than small hospitals

Finally, as with written EHR contingency plans, more large hospitals than small 

hospitals reported having alternate sites. One hospital we visited told us that the 

cost associated with duplicate hardware and software was challenging to support, 

particularly because it had not experienced a disruption that would have called for 

such an investment. 

Emergency Mode Operations: 

When EHRs or the supporting infrastructure goes down, hospitals can take steps 

to keep operating until systems can be restored. Generators can provide 

electricity to sustain EHRs during a power failure. Additionally, paper forms can 

replace key EHR functions during EHR disruptions, such as registering new 

patients, documenting patients’ vital signs, or ordering medications.

Nearly all hospitals reported supplying staff with paper forms to document care 

during EHR disruptions. About three-quarters of hospitals reported meeting the 

recommended practice to maintain enough paper forms to last at least 8 hours. 

See Table 4 for the recommended practices that hospitals reported implementing 

for emergency mode operations. 

Nearly all hospitals also reported having generators and uninterruptible power 

systems. About three-quarters of hospitals reported maintaining fuel supplies to 

power their generators for at least 2 days. The hospitals we visited told us that 

they contracted with local fuel companies to replenish their fuel supplies as 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 12

needed. One hospital that we visited relied on a mix of fuels to ensure a ready 

supply, storing a week’s worth of diesel fuel onsite and connecting directly to a 

natural gas pipeline.

 Table 4: Hospitals That Reported Implementing Recommended Practices for 

 Emergency Mode Operations

Recommended Practice from NIST and ONC

Percentage 

of 

Hospitals

Supply paper forms 100%

Maintain an electric generator 98%

Have processes to reconcile paper forms 96%

Use a communication strategy that does not rely on 

computing infrastructure * 96%

Maintain an uninterruptible power supply * 94%

Test the generator at least monthly 89%

Have forms available to last 8 hours 77%

Maintain at least 2 days of fuel onsite 73%

Test the uninterruptible power supply at least monthly 58%

Source: OIG analysis of hospitals’ responses to EHR contingency plan questionnaire, 2015.

 * Indicates that large hospitals are more likely to include the recommended practice than small hospitals

Testing and Revision: 

By testing their contingency plans, hospitals can identify gaps and other problems 

in a controlled environment, enabling them to make improvements. Hospitals can 

also train staff so they are familiar with activating contingency plans and 

operating under them.

Most hospitals reported reviewing their contingency plans regularly to remain 

current with system or organizational changes. Eighty-eight percent reported

reviewing their EHR contingency plans within the preceding 2 years for any 

reason, including as part of a regularly scheduled review. Hospitals also reported

regularly training staff on how to operate during EHR disruptions. Although most 

hospitals trained staff on EHR contingency plans in the year preceding our 

questionnaire, 45 percent of hospitals reported training staff through 

recommended drills on how to deal with EHR system downtime. One hospital we 

visited told us that it avoids drills because of the risk to patient safety from 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 13

unnecessarily shutting down EHR systems. See Table 5 for the percentages of 

hospitals that reported having policies following the recommended practices for 

testing and revision. 

 Table 5: Hospitals That Reported Implementing Recommended Practices for 

 Testing and Revision 

Recommended Practice from NIST and ONC

Percentage 

of 

Hospitals

Update contingency plans regularly to remain current with 

system enhancements and organizational changes * 85%

Train and test staff on contingency plans * 81%

Validate the contingency plan with testing and exercises 45%

 Source: OIG analysis of hospitals’ responses to EHR contingency plan questionnaire, 2015.

 * Indicates that large hospitals are more likely to include the recommended practice than small hospitals

Over half of hospitals reported an unplanned EHR 

disruption, and a quarter of those experienced delays in

patient care as a result

For the year preceding our questionnaire, 59 percent of hospitals reported

unplanned EHR disruptions that made their EHR system unavailable to hospital 

staff.27

 The majority (74 percent) of these hospitals reported three or fewer 

disruptions within 1 year. One-fifth of hospitals with unplanned disruptions 

reported disruptions that lasted more than 8 hours. 

Hospitals reported that hardware malfunctions accounted for the largest 

percentage of EHR disruptions, followed by Internet connectivity problems. See 

Table 6 for the causes of unplanned EHR disruptions that hospitals reported.

 ____________________________________________________________ 

27 Hospitals completed our questionnaire between May and July 2015. 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 14

 Table 6: Reported Causes of Unplanned EHR Disruptions 

Cause Percentage of 

Hospitals*

Hardware malfunction or failure 59%

Internet connectivity problem 44%

Power failure 33%

Natural disaster 4%

Hacking incident 1%

 Source: OIG analysis of hospitals’ responses to EHR contingency plan questionnaire, 2015.

 * Each hospital may have identified more than one cause of unplanned EHR disruptions

Of those hospitals that reported an unplanned disruption, about one-quarter 

reported an outcome of delayed patient care, while 1 percent of hospitals reported

having lost records. See Table 7 for the outcomes from unplanned EHR 

disruptions that hospitals reported. 

 Table 7: Reported Outcomes from Unplanned EHR disruptions 

Outcomes

Percentage of 

Hospitals*

Delayed patient care 24%

Rerouted patient care 15%

Loss of records 1%

Data breach 0%

 Source: OIG analysis of hospitals’ responses to EHR contingency plan questionnaire, 2015. 

 * Each hospital may have identified more than one outcome from unplanned EHR disruptions. 

 

To minimize the effects of EHR disruptions on clinical care and business 

operations, three of the six hospitals that we visited told us that the backup 

controls in their contingency plans helped to maintain EHR functions. For 

example, if these backup controls work appropriately, clinical staff were unlikely 

to notice any disruption to the EHR system at all. In addition, in our 

questionnaire, 40 percent of hospitals that activated their contingency plans 

reported having no disruption to patient care or adverse events as one of their top 

successes. 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 15

Hospitals reported using planned and unplanned 

disruptions to improve their contingency plans and better 

prepare staff for future disruptions 

More than half of hospitals reported having policies to review their contingency 

plans after each planned or unplanned EHR disruption. EHR disruptions allow 

hospitals to test whether their contingency plans are effective and identify 

opportunities to improve them. For example, as a result of activating and 

reviewing EHR contingency plans, some hospitals reported that they recognized 

the need to improve communication during EHR disruptions. 

Some hospitals also reported that EHR disruptions allow both clinical and IT staff 

to become more familiar with EHR contingency plans. For example, during EHR 

disruptions, clinical staff could practice accessing a read-only system or 

documenting care on paper records. IT staff could practice transferring the EHR 

system to an alternate site and bringing the primary system back to functioning 

status. 

Staff gained experience responding to both planned and unplanned EHR 

disruptions. In fact, hospitals we visited noted that they relied on planned 

disruptions to train staff on EHR contingency plans. In their responses to 

questionnaires, hospitals also noted that they may schedule planned EHR 

disruptions for system upgrades, maintenance, or testing. 

OCR does not target EHR contingency plans for review

In our interviews with OCR staff, they noted that when performing a compliance 

review in response to a breach or other problem, OCR considers HIPAA 

compliance broadly. In fact, HIPAA requirements do not prescribe how covered 

entities should develop or use contingency plans. If warranted by the problem to 

which it is responding, OCR may include EHR contingency plans in its

compliance review. OCR staff also told us that they have not received complaints 

that would prompt an investigation specific to EHR contingency plans through 

OCR’s complaint investigation channels. In March 2016, OCR launched Phase 2 

of its audit program to ensure covered entities’ compliance with HIPAA privacy 

and security requirements. OCR’s audit protocol for Phase 2 assesses compliance 

with questions that address each HIPAA requirement for contingency planning.28

 ____________________________________________________________ 

28 OCR, Audit Program Protocol. Accessed at http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/forprofessionals/compliance-enforcement/audit/protocol-current/index.html on June 2, 2016. 
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 16

CONCLUSION 

In our review, almost all hospitals that received a Medicare incentive payment for 

using certified EHRs reported that they maintain EHR contingency plans as 

required by HIPAA, and two-thirds of hospitals addressed all four HIPAA 

requirements that we reviewed. In addition, hospitals generally implemented 

many practices recommended by ONC and NIST for EHR contingency plans. 

Recommended practices related to backing up, storing, and maintaining data; 

using paper records; and having alternative power sources (e.g., generators) were 

among the most commonly implemented (reported by 90-100 percent of 

hospitals). 

Oversight of HIPAA compliance generally is triggered when OCR becomes 

aware of problems, such as breaches and complaints, at covered entities. OCR 

does not review a covered entity’s contingency plans unless it believes the 

problem to which it is responding warrants it. In March 2016, OCR began Phase 

2 of its audit program that addresses EHR contingency plans through both desk 

and onsite audits of covered entities. 

Persistent and evolving threats to electronic health information reinforce the need 

for EHR contingency plans. Since we administered this review’s hospital 

questionnaire in 2015, awareness of cybersecurity threats to health information 

technology has grown. Stakeholders in government, health care, and information 

technology sectors have raised concerns about vulnerabilities in networked 

medical devices that may put hospital networks and EHR systems at risk. In 

January 2016, a hospital in California reported that it suffered a ransomware 

attack that disabled its network and EHR system for about a week, leading to 

delayed patient care and the need to divert patients to other facilities. Disruptions 

to EHRs from these and other threats can present significant safety risks to 

patients. Contingency plans are crucial because they are designed to minimize the 

occurrence and effects of such disruptions. 

OIG previously recommended that OCR fully implement a permanent audit 

program to assess compliance with HIPAA requirements, and recent events 

underscore the importance of this recommendation. This review provides 

baseline information on hospitals’ EHR contingency plans and reflects our 

continued attention to this issue.
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 17

APPENDIX A

Practices Recommended by NIST and ONC 

Table A-1: Practices Recommended by NIST 

NIST 7 Step Contingency Planning Process

Step 1: Develop the contingency planning policy statement

Step 2: Conduct the business impact analysis 

Step 3: Identify preventive controls 

Step 4: Create contingency strategies 

Step 5: Develop an information system contingency plan 

Step 6: Ensure plan testing, training, and exercises 

Step 7: Ensure plan maintenance 

 Table A-2: Practices Recommended by ONC 

SAFER 10 Recommended Practices

Practice 1: Hardware that runs applications critical to the 

organization’s operation is duplicated.

Practice 2: An electric generator and sufficient fuel are 

available to support the EHR during an extended power outage.

Practice 3: Paper forms are available to replace key EHR 

functions during downtimes.

Practice 4: Patient data and software application configurations 

critical to the organization’s operations are backed up.

Practice 5: Policies and procedures are in place to ensure 

accurate patient identification when preparing for, during, and 

after downtimes.

Practice 6: Staff are trained and tested on downtime and 

recovery procedures.

Practice 7: A communication strategy that does not rely on the 

computing infrastructure exists for downtime and recovery 

periods.

Practice 8: Written policies and procedures on EHR downtimes 

and recovery processes ensure continuity of operations with 

regard to safe patient care and critical business operations.

Practice 9: The user interface of the locally maintained backup, 

read-only EHR system is clearly differentiated from the 

live/production EHR system.

Practice 10: There is a comprehensive testing and monitoring 

strategy in place to prevent and manage EHR downtime events.
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 18

APPENDIX B

HIPAA Requirements and Practices Recommended by NIST and ONC 

for Contingency Planning 

Source for NIST: NIST, Special Publication 800-34: Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems (May 2010) 

Source for ONC: ONC, SAFER Self-Assessment: Contingency Planning (Jan. 2014). 

Source for HIPAA Requirement: OIG Analysis. 

 * HIPAA requirement of criticality assessment procedures was outside the scope of this evaluation and was not included in this 

analysis. 

HIPAA requirement Recommended Practice NIST’s Guide ONC’s Guide

Data backup plan

164.308 (a)(7)(ii)(A)

 Maintain backup copies

 Back up data daily, or more frequently

Step 4

Section 3.4.2 Practice 4

 Store backup data offsite

 Have a read-only EHR system

Step 4

Section 3.4.2

 Visually differentiate read-only system - Practice 9

Disaster recovery plan

164.308 (a)(7)(ii)(B)

 Have at least 2 Internet paths

 Have at least 2 Internet providers

 Have a “warm” or “hot” alternate site

 Locate the alternate site 50 miles from 

primary site

 Test the alternate site at least quarterly

 Transfer operations to the alternate site 

within 8 hours

Step 4

Section 3.4.3

Practice 1

 Determine a strategy to replace damaged 

equipment

Step 4

Section 3.4.4 -

Emergency mode 

operations plan

164.308 (a)(7)(ii)(C)

 Maintain an electric generator 

 Test the generator monthly

 Maintain at least 2 days of fuel onsite

 Maintain an uninterruptible power source

 Test the uninterruptible power supply at 

least monthly

Step 3

Section 3.3 Practice 2

 Supply paper forms 

 Have forms available to last 8 hours - Practice 3

 Processes to reconcile paper forms - Practice 5

 Use a communication strategy that does not 

rely on computing infrastructure - Practice 7

Testing and revision 

procedures

164.308 (a)(7)(ii)(D)

 Train and test staff on contingency plans Step 6

Section 3.5.2 Practice 6

 Validate the contingency plan with testing 

and exercises

Step 6 Sections 

3.5.1 & 3.5.3 -

 Update contingency plans regularly to 

remain current with system enhancements 

and organizational changes

Step 7

Section 3.6 Practice 8

Criticality assessment 

procedures*

164.308 (a)(7)(ii)(E)

 Conduct a business impact analysis to 

prioritize contingency planning for the 

information systems critical to the 

organization’s operation

Step 2

Section 3.2 -
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 19

APPENDIX C

Point Estimates, Confidence Intervals, and Results of Independent 

T-Tests 

Table C-1: Point Estimates and Confidence Intervals 

Description

Sample 

Size

Percentage of Hospitals

(95-Percent Confidence Interval)

Hospitals with written contingency plans 342

95.4%

(93.1%−96.9%)

Hospitals without written contingency plans 342

4.6%

(3.1−6.9%)

Hospitals with contingency plans that address 

all four HIPAA requirements 342

67.7%

(62.5%−72.5%)

Hospitals with a data backup plan 342

83.4%

(79.1%−86.9%)

Hospitals with a disaster recovery plan 342

94.7%

(92.3%-96.3%)

Hospitals with an emergency-mode operations 

plan 342

95.2%

(92.9%-96.8%)

Hospitals with testing and revision procedures 342

73.1%

(68.2%-77.6%)

Hospitals that maintain backup copies 342

99.4%

(97.6%-99.9%)

Hospitals that store backup data offsite 340

92.0%

(88.6%-94.5%)

Hospitals that back up data daily or more 

frequently 204

90.9%

(86.1%-94.1%)

Hospitals with a read-only EHR system 342

57.0%

(51.6%-62.2%)

Hospitals that visually differentiate their readonly systems 342

32.2%

(27.3%-37.6%)
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 20

Description

Sample 

Size

Percentage of Hospitals

(95-Percent Confidence Interval)

Hospitals that determine a strategy to replace 

damaged equipment 342

86.9%

(82.9%-90.1%)

Hospitals with at least two Internet paths 342

77.7%

(73.3%-81.6%)

Hospitals with at least two Internet carriers 342

67.2%

(62.2%-71.9%)

Hospitals with a “warm” or “hot” alternate site 342

56.0%

(50.7%-61.2%)

Hospitals that transfer operations to the 

alternate site within 8 hours 342

45.6%

(40.3%-51.1%)

Hospitals that locate the alternate site within 

50 miles of the primary site 342

31.1%

(26.3%-36.4%)

Hospitals that test the alternate site quarterly 196

24.5%

(19.1%-31.0%)

Hospitals that supply paper forms 342

99.6%

(98.7%-99.9%)

Hospitals that maintain an electric generator 342

98.4%

(96.2%-99.4%)

Hospitals that have processes to reconcile 

paper forms 342

96.3%

(93.7%-97.9%)

Hospitals that use a communication strategy 

that does not rely on computing infrastructure 342

95.9%

(93.5%-97.4%)

Hospitals that maintain an uninterruptible 

power supply 342

93.6%

(90.6%-95.6%)

Hospitals that test their generators at least 

monthly 342

89.4%

(85.6%-92.3%)

Hospitals that have forms available to last 8 

hours 342

77.1%

(72.3%-81.3%)
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 21

Description

Sample 

Size

Percentage of Hospitals

(95-Percent Confidence Interval)

Hospitals that maintain at least 2 days of fuel 

onsite 342

73.0%

(67.9%-77.5%)

Hospitals that test the uninterruptible power 

supply at least monthly 342

57.9%

(52.6%-63.1%)

Hospitals that update contingency plans 

regularly 342

84.9%

(80.8%-88.3%)

Hospitals that train and test staff on 

contingency plans 342

81.5%

(77.1%-85.2%)

Hospitals that validate contingency plans with 

training and exercises 342

45.2%

(39.8%-50.6%)

Hospitals with an unplanned EHR disruption in 

the year preceding our questionnaire 342

58.8%

(53.4%-64.1%)

Hospitals with three or fewer unplanned 

disruptions 196

73.9%

(67.3%-79.7%)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption caused 

by a hardware malfunction or failure 196

59.3%

(52.2%-66.0%)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption caused 

an Internet connectivity problem 196

44.3%

(37.5%-51.3%)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption caused 

by a power failure 196

32.7%

(26.5%-39.5%)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption caused 

by a natural disaster 196

4.3%

(2.2%-8.5%)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption caused 

by a hacking incident 196

0.7%

(0.1%-4.4%)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption that 

resulted in delayed patient care 204

24.5%

(18.9%-31.1%)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption that 

resulted in rerouted patient care 204

15.2%

(10.7%-21.0%)
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 22

Description

Sample 

Size

Percentage of Hospitals

(95-Percent Confidence Interval)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption that 

resulted in loss of records 204

1.0%

(0.2%-4.0%)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption that 

resulted in a data breach 204

0.0%

(0%-4.4%)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption that 

resulted in adverse events 204

0.0%

(0%-4.4%)

Hospitals that review contingency plans after 

each disruption 320

54.0%

(48.4%-59.5%)

Hospitals with an unplanned disruption that 

exceeded 8 hours 204

19.9%

(15.0%-26.0%)

Hospitals that listed communication as a way 

to improve response after activating 

contingency plans

169

39.5%

(32.2%-47.3%)

Hospitals that listed as a success staff 

familiarity with contingency plans after the 

plans were activated

171

23.3%

(17.4%-30.3%)

Hospitals that listed as one of their top 

successes no disruption to patient care or no

adverse events after contingency plans were 

activated

171

39.7%

(32.4%-47.4%)

Hospitals that reviewed their contingency plans 

in the last 2 years 342

88.2%

(84.6%-91.1%)

Source: OIG questionnaire of hospitals, 2015.
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 23

Table C2: Results of Independent Group T-Tests for Hospitals by Stratum 

Factor Stratum

Point 

Estimates P-Value

Difference in hospitals with EHR contingency 

plans

Large

Small

98.3%

88.7% 0.0004

Difference in hospitals with contingency plans 

that cover all four HIPAA requirements

Large

Small

60.7%

70.7%

0.0521

Difference in hospitals that maintain backup 

copies

Large

Small

99.4%

99.4% 0.9802

Difference in hospitals with read-only EHR 

systems

Large

Small

62.1%

45.2% 0.0017

Difference in hospitals that visually differentiate 

read-only systems

Large

Small

35.6%

24.4% 0.0236

Difference in hospitals with at least two

Internet paths

Large

Small

85.1%

60.7% 0.0001

Difference in hospitals with at least two 

Internet carriers

Large

Small

74.1%

51.1% 0.0001

Difference in hospitals with a “warm” or “hot”

alternate site

Large

Small

63.2%

39.3% 0.0001

Difference in hospitals that transfer operations 

to the alternate site within 8 hours

Large

Small

48.9%

38.1% 0.0451

Difference in hospitals that locate the alternate 

site within 50 miles of the primary site

Large

Small

32.8%

27.4% 0.2798

Difference in hospitals that test the alternate 

site quarterly

Large

Small

21.2%

35.4% 0.0261
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 24

Factor Stratum

Point 

Estimates P-Value

Difference in hospitals that supply paper forms Large

Small

100.0%

98.8% 0.1498

Difference in hospitals that maintain an electric 

generator

Large

Small

98.3%

98.8% 0.6811

Difference in hospitals that have processes to 

reconcile paper forms

Large

Small

96.6%

95.8% 0.7293

Difference in hospitals that use a 

communication strategy that does not rely on 

computing infrastructure

Large

Small

97.7%

91.7% 0.0134

Difference in hospitals that maintain an 

uninterruptible power supply

Large

Small

95.4%

89.3% 0.0342

Difference in hospitals that test the generator 

at least monthly

Large

Small

90.2%

87.5% 0.4234

Difference in hospitals that have forms 

available to last 8 hours

Large

Small

79.3%

72.0% 0.1168

Difference in hospitals that maintain at least 

2 days of fuel onsite

Large

Small

74.1%

70.2% 0.4223

Difference in hospitals that test the 

uninterruptible power supply at least monthly

Large

Small

62.6%

47.0% 0.0036

Difference in hospitals that train and test staff 

on contingency plans

Large

Small

85.1%

73.2% 0.0071

Difference in hospitals that validate 

contingency plans with training and exercises

Large

Small

47.8%

39.3% 0.1173

Difference in hospitals that duplicate hardware 

and infrastructure

Large

Small

82.8%

66.1% 0.0004

Source: OIG questionnaire of hospitals, 2015.
Hospitals Largely Reported Addressing Requirements for EHR Contingency Plans (OEI-01-14-00570) 25

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared under the direction of Joyce Greenleaf, Regional 

Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections in the Boston regional office,

and Kenneth Price, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 

Danielle Fletcher served as team leader for this study. Alyson Cooper served as 

lead analyst for this study. Central office staff who provided support include 

Lucia Fort, Althea Hosein, and Joanne Legomsky.
Office of Inspector General

http://oig.hhs.gov 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95452, as 

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of individuals served by those programs. 

This statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, 

and inspections conducted by the following operating components: 

Office of Audit Services 

The Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, either by conducting 

audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits 

examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying 

out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent assessments of 

HHS programs and operations. These assessments help reduce waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement and promote economy and efficiency throughout HHS. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts national evaluations to provide 

HHS, Congress, and the public with timely, useful, and reliable information on significant 

issues. These evaluations focus on preventing fraud, waste, or abuse and promoting 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of departmental programs. To promote impact, OEI 

reports also present practical recommendations for improving program operations. 

Office of Investigations 

The Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations 

of fraud and misconduct related to HHS programs, operations, and individuals. With 

investigators working in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, OI utilizes its resources 

by actively coordinating with the Department of Justice and other Federal, State, and local 

law enforcement authorities. The investigative efforts of OI often lead to criminal 

convictions, administrative sanctions, and/or civil monetary penalties. 

Office of Counsel to the Inspector General 

The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to 

OIG, rendering advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all 

legal support for OIG’s internal operations. OCIG represents OIG in all civil and 

administrative fraud and abuse cases involving HHS programs, including False Claims Act, 

program exclusion, and civil monetary penalty cases. In connection with these cases, OCIG 

also negotiates and monitors corporate integrity agreements. OCIG renders advisory 

opinions, issues compliance program guidance, publishes fraud alerts, and provides other 

guidance to the health care industry concerning the anti-kickback statute and other OIG 

enforcement authorities.