[{"innerBlocks":[],"name":"core\/freeform","postId":840,"blockType":{"name":"core\/freeform","keywords":[],"attributes":{"content":{"type":"string","source":"raw"},"lock":{"type":"object"}},"providesContext":[],"usesContext":[],"selectors":[],"supports":{"className":false,"customClassName":false,"reusable":false},"styles":[],"variations":[],"apiVersion":3,"title":"Classic","description":"Use the classic WordPress editor.","category":"text"},"originalContent":"The Federal Trade Commission has weighed in regarding a proposed rule on information blocking from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT.

In a letter<\/a> to ONC, the FTC\u2019s Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of Economics and Bureau of Competition recommends that the agency consider changes to ensure that its final rule \u201cdoes not inadvertently distort competition or inhibit conduct that is affirmatively procompetitive and consumer friendly.\u201d

ONC\u2019s proposed rule seeks to implement the information blocking provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act and includes seven exceptions to the definition of information blocking\u2014the act of intentionally interfering with the sharing of electronic health information.

However, the FTC contends that there are \u201cadditional areas where the information-blocking rule and accompanying exceptions could be further refined to help minimize unintended consequences.\u201d

Also See<\/b>: EHRA says ONC\u2019s proposed interoperability rule needs major revisions<\/a>

Specifically, <\/b>the FTC <\/b>wants ONC to consider the following revisions to its proposed rule:

\u00b7 Using other, more fully developed examples of permissible conduct to clarify genuine safe harbors for conduct that does not harm competition or consumer welfare.

\u00b7 Adjusting the definition of \u201cElectronic Health Information\u201d so that it applies more narrowly to the information central to purposes of the authorizing statute, such as information needed for patient treatment and Health Information System interoperability.

\u00b7 Clarifying when market pricing is not deemed information blocking, and providing additional leeway for market pricing and certain ordinary refusals (or failures) to deal under the \u201crecovering costs reasonably incurred,\u201d \u201cresponding to requests that are infeasible,\u201d and the \u201clicensing of interoperability elements on fair and reasonable terms\u201d exceptions.

\u00b7 Narrowing the proposed definition of \u201cdevelopers of certified Health Information Technology\u201d to focus on those activities or practices that involve certified Health Information Technology.

\u201cThese suggestions may help clarify the final rule so that the exceptions do not inadvertently prohibit \u2018activities that are innocuous, or even beneficial,\u2019 \u201d states the FTC\u2019s letter.","saveContent":"The Federal Trade Commission has weighed in regarding a proposed rule on information blocking from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT.

In a letter<\/a> to ONC, the FTC\u2019s Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of Economics and Bureau of Competition recommends that the agency consider changes to ensure that its final rule \u201cdoes not inadvertently distort competition or inhibit conduct that is affirmatively procompetitive and consumer friendly.\u201d

ONC\u2019s proposed rule seeks to implement the information blocking provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act and includes seven exceptions to the definition of information blocking\u2014the act of intentionally interfering with the sharing of electronic health information.

However, the FTC contends that there are \u201cadditional areas where the information-blocking rule and accompanying exceptions could be further refined to help minimize unintended consequences.\u201d

Also See<\/b>: EHRA says ONC\u2019s proposed interoperability rule needs major revisions<\/a>

Specifically, <\/b>the FTC <\/b>wants ONC to consider the following revisions to its proposed rule:

\u00b7 Using other, more fully developed examples of permissible conduct to clarify genuine safe harbors for conduct that does not harm competition or consumer welfare.

\u00b7 Adjusting the definition of \u201cElectronic Health Information\u201d so that it applies more narrowly to the information central to purposes of the authorizing statute, such as information needed for patient treatment and Health Information System interoperability.

\u00b7 Clarifying when market pricing is not deemed information blocking, and providing additional leeway for market pricing and certain ordinary refusals (or failures) to deal under the \u201crecovering costs reasonably incurred,\u201d \u201cresponding to requests that are infeasible,\u201d and the \u201clicensing of interoperability elements on fair and reasonable terms\u201d exceptions.

\u00b7 Narrowing the proposed definition of \u201cdevelopers of certified Health Information Technology\u201d to focus on those activities or practices that involve certified Health Information Technology.

\u201cThese suggestions may help clarify the final rule so that the exceptions do not inadvertently prohibit \u2018activities that are innocuous, or even beneficial,\u2019 \u201d states the FTC\u2019s letter.","order":0,"get_parent":{},"attributes":[],"attributesType":{"content":{"type":"string","source":"raw"},"lock":{"type":"object"}},"dynamicContent":""}]

FTC: ONC rule could distort competition, impede innovation

More for you