Medicare Program: Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances; Request for Information (RFI), 47151-47157 [2020-16897]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
pollutants in 2014 from EGUs and nonEGUs in Mississippi exceed the
predicted reductions in MDEQ’s
regional haze plan with the exception of
SO2 for EGUs; 74 additional EGU control
measures not relied upon in the State’s
2008 regional haze plan have occurred
during the first implementation period
that have further reduced SO2
emissions; and the State’s expectation
that emissions of SO2 from EGUs in
Mississippi are expected to continue to
trend downward.
EPA proposes to conclude that
Mississippi has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(h) because the emissions
trends of the largest emitters of
visibility-impairing pollutants in the
State indicate that the RPGs for any
Class I areas in other states potentially
impacted by Mississippi sources will be
met and because MDEQ submitted the
draft BART SIP which, if finalized,
would correct the deficiencies in the
regional haze plan that led to the
limited disapproval. As previously
noted, EPA is simultaneously proposing
to approve a SIP revision to address
certain BART determinations for 14
EGUs. EPA cannot take final action to
approve Mississippi’s declaration under
40 CFR 51.308(h) unless the Agency
finalizes its proposal to approve the
draft BART SIP.
V. Proposed Action
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA proposes to approve the draft
BART SIP and finds that it corrects the
deficiencies that led to the limited
approval and limited disapproval of the
State’s regional haze SIP; to withdraw
the limited disapproval of Mississippi’s
regional haze SIP; and to fully approve
Mississippi’s regional haze SIP as
meeting all regional haze requirements
of the CAA for the first implementation
period, replacing the prior limited
approval. EPA also proposes to approve
Mississippi’s October 4, 2018, Regional
Haze Progress Report, as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and to
approve the State’s negative declaration
under 51.308(h). EPA cannot take final
action to approve Mississippi’s Progress
Report and negative declaration unless
the Agency finalizes its proposal to
approve the draft BART SIP.
74 As noted in Section IV.A.2, the conversion of
Plant Watson from coal to natural gas in 2015
contributed to significant SO2 emissions decreases
after 2014. In addition, 2017 Mississippi EGU SO2
emissions were 3,841 tons, which were below the
2018 projected 15,213 tons shown in Table 13 of
section IV.A.2 of this notice.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. These actions merely propose
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
these proposed actions:
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
actions because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47151
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, these rules do not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will they impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 23, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020–16443 Filed 8–3–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 423
[CMS–3394–NC]
RIN 0938–AU25
Medicare Program: Electronic
Prescribing of Controlled Substances;
Request for Information (RFI)
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
Section 2003 of the Substance
Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes
Opioid Recovery and Treatment for
Patients and Communities Act
(SUPPORT Act) requires generally that
prescriptions for controlled substances
covered under a Medicare Part D
prescription drug plan or Medicare
Advantage Prescription Drug Plan (MA/
PD) be transmitted by a health care
practitioner electronically in accordance
with an electronic prescription drug
program, beginning January 1, 2021.
Further, section 2003 of the SUPPORT
Act provides CMS with the authority to,
through rulemaking, enforce and specify
appropriate penalties for
noncompliance with the requirement for
electronic prescribing of controlled
substances (EPCS). The SUPPORT Act
requires CMS to specify, through
rulemaking, circumstances and
processes by which it may waive the
EPCS requirement. This Request for
Information (RFI) seeks input from
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47152
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
stakeholders about whether CMS should
include exceptions to the EPCS and
under what circumstances, and whether
CMS should impose penalties for
noncompliance with this mandate in its
rulemaking, and what those penalties
should be.
DATES: To be assured consideration,
comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided in the
ADDRESSES section, no later than 5 p.m.
on October 5, 2020.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, refer to file
code CMS–3394–NC.
Comments, including mass comment
submissions, must be submitted in one
of the following three ways (please
choose only one of the ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on this regulation
to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the ‘‘ ‘‘Submit a comment’’ ’’
instructions.
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments to the following
address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS–3394–
NC, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD
21244–8010.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed
comments to be received before the
close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You
may send written comments to the
following address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS–3394–
NC, Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
For information on viewing public
comments, see the beginning of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ashley Hain, (410) 786–7603, for
general inquiries related to the RFI.
Joella Roland, (410) 786–7638, for Part
D electronic-prescribing issues.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inspection
of Public Comments: All comments
received before the close of the
comment period are available for
viewing by the public, including any
personally identifiable or confidential
business information that is included in
a comment. We post all comments
received before the close of the
comment period on the following
website as soon as possible after they
have been received: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the search
instructions on that website to view
public comments.
I. Background
In 2018, President Trump signed the
Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
Promotes Opioid Recovery and
Treatment for Patients and Communities
Act, or the SUPPORT for Patients and
Communities Act, into law, which
mobilized Federal efforts to address the
nation’s ongoing opioid crisis. Section
2003 of the SUPPORT Act mandates
that the prescribing of a Schedule II, III,
IV, or V controlled substance under
Medicare Part D should be done
electronically in accordance with an
electronic prescription drug program,
beginning 2021, subject to any
exceptions, which the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) may
specify. The circumstances that are
listed in the statute under which the
Secretary may waive the EPCS
requirement are at section 1860D–4(e)(7)
of the Act, as added by section 2003 of
the SUPPORT Act, and include—
• A prescription issued when the
practitioner and dispensing pharmacy
are the same entity;
• A prescription issued that cannot be
transmitted electronically under the
most recently implemented version of
the National Council for Prescription
Drug Programs SCRIPT Standard;
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner who received a waiver or a
renewal thereof for a period of time as
determined by the Secretary, not to
exceed one year, from the requirement
to use electronic prescribing due to
demonstrated economic hardship,
technological limitations that are not
reasonably within the control of the
practitioner, or other exceptional
circumstance demonstrated by the
practitioner;
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner under circumstances in
which, notwithstanding the
practitioner’s ability to submit a
prescription electronically as required
by this subsection, such practitioner
reasonably determines that it would be
impractical for the individual involved
to obtain substances prescribed by
electronic prescription in a timely
manner, and such delay would
adversely impact the individual’s
medical condition involved;
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner prescribing a drug under a
research protocol;
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner for a drug for which the
Food and Drug Administration requires
a prescription to contain elements that
are not able to be included in electronic
prescribing, such as a drug with risk
evaluation and mitigation strategies that
include elements to assure safe use;
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner—
++ For an individual who receives
hospice care under title XVIII; and
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
++ That is not covered under the
hospice benefit under title XVIII; and
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner for an individual who is—
++ A resident of a nursing facility (as
defined in section 1919(a) of the Act);
and
++ Dually eligible for benefits under
titles and XVIII and XIX.
Since Part D was signed into law in
2003, electronic prescribing (eprescribing or e-Rx) has been optional
for physicians with respect to
prescriptions made for covered Part D
drugs. However, Part D sponsors
offering drug plans have been required
to have the electronic capabilities to
support electronic prescribing. CMS
adopted the first set of standards for eprescribing for Part D in 2005.1 Those
standards included the National Council
for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP)
SCRIPT Standard Version 5, Release 0.
Since then, CMS has continued to adopt
updated e-prescribing standards 2 with
the most recent standard described in a
final rule published April 16, 2018,
where CMS finalized its update of its
Part D standards to NCPDP SCRIPT
standard version 2017071 for e-Rx and
medication history, effective January 1,
2020 (83 FR 16440).
We maintain a prescription drug
events (PDEs) system to capture Part D
prescriptions processed (see OMB
Control Number 0938–0982). The PDE
format includes a field in which the
plan must indicate whether the
prescription was written via paper,
electronic or telephonic means. CMS
has collected data on controlled
substances and non-controlled
substances since the Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA) permitted the electronic
prescribing of controlled substances in
2010.3
However, as HHS and other Federal
departments and agencies work to
implement various provisions of the
SUPPORT Act, including the electronic
prescribing requirements for controlled
substances under Part D, the health care
system faces new challenges. The
United States is currently responding to
an outbreak of respiratory disease
caused by a novel (new) coronavirus
now detected in 50 States and the
District of Columbia. This virus has
been named ‘‘severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2’’ (‘‘SARS-CoV–
2’’), and the disease it causes has been
named ‘‘coronavirus disease 2019’’
1 See
70 FR 67568.
regulations adopting updated versions of
the NCPDP SCRIPT standard: 73 FR 18918 (NCPDP
SCRIPT version 8.1) and 77 FR 688892 (NCPDP
SCRIPT version 10.6).
3 See 75 FR 16284, including revisions adopted to
21 CFR 1304.04.
2 CMS
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
(‘‘COVID–19’’). In January 2020, HHS
Secretary Alex M. Azar II determined
that a Public Health Emergency (PHE)
exists for the United States to aid the
nation’s health care community in
responding to COVID–19 (hereafter
referred to as the PHE for the COVID–
19 pandemic), and on April 21, 2020,
Secretary Azar renewed, effective April
26, 2020, the determination that a PHE
exists. In March 2020, President Trump
declared the COVID–19 pandemic a
national emergency. Certain
individuals, including older adults and
persons with chronic conditions, who
comprise a predominance of the
Medicare beneficiary population, are at
elevated risk of more severe illness and
potential death from COVID–19. The
Centers for Disease Control’s guidance
on the COVID–19 pandemic notes that
‘‘people in their 50s are at higher risk
for severe illness than people in their
40s. Similarly, people in their 60s or 70s
are, in general, at higher risk for severe
illness than people in their 50s. The
greatest risk for severe illness from
COVID–19 is among those aged 85 or
older.’’ 4 As a result of the PHE, and as
the nation reopens, some individuals,
such as those who are at high risk, may
continue to practice self-isolation and
social distancing.5
We have taken many regulatory and
policy actions to swiftly aid the nation’s
health care system to address effectively
the COVID–19 pandemic. These actions
include new flexibilities for telehealth
and other electronic technologies 6 to
ease the burden on providers and help
assure appropriate and safe care in a
range of settings for beneficiaries. Also,
DEA has adopted certain new temporary
flexibilities to allow DEA-registered
practitioners to prescribe controlled
substances without having to interact in
person with some patients, effective for
the duration of the PHE.7 DEA’s
COVID–19 information page may be
found at: https://www.deadiversion.
usdoj.gov/coronavirus.html. DEA has
acknowledged the prevalence of paper
prescribing of controlled substances and
attempted to address some of the
hardships it poses for prescribers and
patients during the PHE. We believe that
social distancing is, in part, responsible
for the increase in EPCS during this
PHE. In 2020, electronic prescribing
increased to 50 percent of all PDEs
4 See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html.
5 See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html.
6 See https://www.cms.gov/files/document/covid19-physicians-and-practitioners.pdf.
7 See https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/GDP/
(DEA-DC-023)(DEA075)Decision_Tree_(Final)_
33120_2007.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
being prescribed as compared to 38
percent in 2019.8 With the use of
electronic prescribing, a patient and
provider can conduct a visit via
telehealth and then have the
prescription electronically transmitted
to the pharmacy without having to see
each other in-person and risk
transmitting COVID–19. Some insurers,
including Part D plans, may be
permitting medication refills, including
for controlled substances, earlier than
usual or for a more extended period of
time than was previously allowed.
Pharmacies that were not previously
doing so may deliver medications, or
deliver at no charge, and communities
and individuals have worked together to
design ways for vulnerable persons to
continue to receive access to prescribed
medications in tandem with these new
government and private sector
flexibilities.
DEA has the primary responsibility
for establishing requirements for
prescribing and dispensing of controlled
substances. In 2010, DEA issued an
Interim Final Rule with Request for
Comment, ‘‘Electronic Prescriptions for
Controlled Substances,’’ that provided
practitioners with the option of writing
prescriptions for controlled substances
electronically (75 FR 16236). The rule
also permitted pharmacies to receive,
dispense, and archive these electronic
prescriptions. Any electronic controlled
substance prescription issued by a
practitioner must meet the requirements
in DEA’s EPCS interim final rule. On
April 21, 2020, DEA reopened the 2010
interim final rule to solicit comments
from the public on specific EPCS-related
issues.9
Since the issuance of DEA’s EPCS
interim final rule in 2010, CMS has seen
a steady increase in the volume of
controlled substance prescriptions
submitted electronically. For example,
in 2018, 26.57 percent of controlled
substance prescription drug events
(PDEs) were transmitted electronically.
In 2019, e-prescribing for controlled
substances PDEs increased to 37.31
percent. However, in our 2020 data,
51.15 percent of those PDEs have been
transmitted electronically. States have
instituted electronic prescribing
requirements; some include penalties
for not using e-prescribing for controlled
substances. As of 2020, all states in the
U.S. and the District of Columbia allow
8 Based on Prescription Drug Event data
processed through April 30, 2020.
9 See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2020/04/21/2020-07085/electronic-prescriptionsfor-controlled-substances.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47153
electronic prescribing of controlled
substances for schedules II through V.10
EPCS provides multiple advantages
over the traditional processing of
prescriptions.11 In addition to
improving workflow efficiencies,
electronic prescribing of controlled
substances can deter and help detect
prescription fraud and irregularities by
requiring an extra layer of identity
proofing, two-factor authentication and
digital signature processes. It can also
provide more timely and accurate data
than paper prescriptions. By allowing
for the direct transmission of electronic
prescriptions for controlled substances
between providers and pharmacies or
facilities, EPCS may also reduce the
burden on prescribers who need to
coordinate and manage paper
prescriptions between staff, patients,
facilities, other care sites, and
pharmacies. In addition, EPCS data is
transmitted to Prescription Drug
Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), which
can help inform providers of patients’
medication history at the time of
prescribing. It is also important to
continue the assurance of privacy and
10 Schedule I drugs are not included in EPCS
discussions because they have no currently
accepted medical use. See https://
www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/#define for
additional detail on definitions of controlled
substances.
11 Phillips et. al. ‘‘Market Guide for Identity
Proofing and Corroboration.’’ April 24, 2018.
Gartner, Inc. Retrieved from https://
www.fedscoop.com/gartner-guide-identity-proofingcorroboration-2018/ on April 30, 2020. Ryan, D.
‘‘FinCEN: Know Your Customer Requirements.’’
February 7, 2016. Harvard Law School Forum on
Corporate Governance. Retrieved from https://
corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/02/07/fincen-knowyour-customer-requirements/#2b on April 30, 2020.
Nix, M. ‘‘Five Questions: Ken Whittemore Talks
Past, Present & Future of E-Prescribing Controlled
Substances.’’ March 31, 2020. SureScripts.
Retrieved from https://surescripts.com/news-center/
intelligence-in-action/opioids/five-questions-kenwhittemore-talks-past-present-future-of-eprescribing-controlled-substances?utm_
campaign=IIA percent2FBlog
percent20Subscription&utm_source=hs_
email&utm_medium=email&utm_
content=85955401&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8xs36u7x
TFZ-ieOxJk3309SApbE7to_fnk1SZvz2jqwz0pA3k7
TtW9byiOq2zBlheLInMOeajCMCKeQUTzc
EDP79HEaeXI52QiadhAYAWU3Px2eZc&_
hsmi=85955401 on April 30, 2020. Zhang et. al.
‘‘T2FA: Transparent Two-Factor Authentication.’’
June 15, 2018. IEEE Access. Retrieved from https://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&
arnumber=8386653 on April 30, 2020. Konoth R.K.,
van der Veen V., Bos H. (2017) How Anywhere
Computing Just Killed Your Phone-Based TwoFactor Authentication. In: Grossklags J., Preneel B.
(eds) Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC
2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9603.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Retrieved from https://
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007 percent2F978–
3–662–54970–4_24 on April 30, 2020. Cal and Zhu.
‘‘Fraud detections for online businesses: a
perspective from blockchain technology.’’ Financial
Innovation (2016) 2:20. Retrieved from https://
link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s40854-0160039-4.pdf on April 30, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
47154
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
security in the prescribing process, such
as by controlling prescriber access
through improved identity controls and
authentication protocols. EPCS can
assure prescribers’ identity more easily
and may permit a single workflow for
prescribing both controlled and noncontrolled drugs, improving the overall
prescribing process.12
From the patient standpoint, EPCS
may reduce the logistical burden on
patients who may otherwise be required
to make multiple trips between
providers and pharmacies to transport
paper prescriptions when filling timesensitive prescriptions while in pain or
otherwise in need of treatment with
controlled substances, as Schedule II,
III, IV, or V drugs that may be used to
treat a number of conditions. EPCS can
lessen the time needed to obtain
prescriptions by minimizing trips to the
physician to pick up paper prescriptions
for refills, minimize transportation costs
to and from the provider’s office, and
even help lessen stigma, well-known to
be associated with chronic pain when
opioid therapy is used as a treatment
modality.13 EPCS’ security advantages
also assure prescribers, patients, and
pharmacies that prescriptions are
processed as intended. In addition to
helping with the reduction in fraud
previously described, EPCS minimizes
the likelihood that prescriptions have
been tampered with, since electronic
prescriptions are securely transmitted
directly to the pharmacy from health
information technology, which
minimizes the likelihood of exposure to
patients or other third parties with
potentially malicious intent.
II. Solicitation of Public Comments
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
We are issuing this RFI and requesting
comment from stakeholders regarding
how the SUPPORT Act’s EPCS
requirements can be implemented with
minimal burden to those prescribers
participating in the Part D program
during and after the PHE. We are
committed to helping health care
providers streamline operations, and
want to strongly encourage prescriber
EPCS adoption across the health care
continuum as another mechanism to
further ease burden, ensure prescribing
12 HHS Office of the National Coordinator, The
ONC Doctors’ Perspective: Electronic Prescribing of
Controlled Substances (EPCS) Is on the Rise, and
We Must Work Together to Address Barriers to Use:
https://www.healthit.gov/buzz-blog/health-it/theonc-doctors-perspective-electronic-prescribing-ofcontrolled-substances-epcs-is-on-the-rise-and-wemust-work-together-to-address-barriers-to-use
13 Department of Health and Human Services
Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task
Force Report, May 2019: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/
default/files/pmtf-final-report-2019-05-23.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
safety, and improve beneficiary health
and satisfaction.
We seek responses to this RFI from
beneficiary and advocacy groups;
beneficiaries and caregivers; primary
care and specialty providers; health
plans and supplemental insurers; state,
local, and territorial governments;
research and policy experts; industry
and professional associations; long-term
care facilities, hospice providers,
pharmacists, and pharmacy
associations; and other interested
members of the public.
In the following sections of this RFI,
we discuss compliance assessments,
enforcement (including penalties), and
waivers. We seek comments in response
to questions related to each of these
topics in each subsection.
Commenters are requested to provide
responses to the following questions
that are most relevant to their interest
and experience. A response to every
question is not required. Additionally,
commenters may identify and comment
on other issues that they believe are
significant for CMS to consider in
implementing the SUPPORT Act’s EPCS
requirements. Respondents are
requested to draw their responses from
objective, empirical, and actionable
evidence and to cite this evidence
within their responses whenever
possible.
A EPCS Compliance Assessments
Based on a published report of 2019
data reflecting the majority of
prescribing activities across the
country,14 97 percent of U.S.
pharmacies were capable of processing
electronic prescriptions for controlled
substances, yet only 49 percent of
prescribers were capable of
electronically prescribing controlled
substances. The same report showed
that 38 percent of controlled substance
prescriptions were electronically
prescribed, while 85 percent of noncontrolled substances were
electronically prescribed. Pain
management specialists appear to be
using electronic prescribing for
controlled substances more often than
other prescribers, and family
practitioners are using electronic
prescribing less often. Electronic
prescribing also varies across practice
size and ownership and among
physicians who practice in groups
owned by a health plan, health
maintenance organizations, hospital, or
other healthcare entity. Use of the
14 Surescripts. ‘‘National Progress Report 2019.’’
March 2020. Retrieved from https://
surescripts.com/docs/default-source/nationalprogress-reports/7398_ab-v2_2019-npr-brochure.pdf
on April 20, 2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
technology does not vary significantly
between rural and urban areas, but it
does vary between states, likely
associated with differences in
regulations, penalties, waivers,
populations, and culture.15
The reasons for this disparity between
capability and practice are likely to be
multifaceted. For instance, we
hypothesize that there may be
challenges associated with some
prescribers’ ability to electronically
prescribe controlled substances within
their normal workflow, and reluctance
to alter workflow habits use new
technology, although the recent COVID–
19-related need to shift to remote forms
of patient care may have already rapidly
and substantially altered many such
preferences. Other prescribers may be
dependent on health care groups,
clinics, or hospital systems to
implement the necessary technology.
There are also costs associated with the
adoption of technology, which may
disproportionately impact small or rural
practices or pharmacies. Though EPCS
uptake continues to grow,16 based on
pre-COVID–19 data, there is clearly
more opportunity for greater adoption of
electronic prescribing of controlled
substances.
Substantial adoption of EPCS has
occurred in the thirteen states that
require it.17 Some states have chosen to
use penalties to increase prescribers’
compliance with EPCS requirements.
For example, New York mandated EPCS
with a penalty for non-compliance and
subsequently experienced an EPCS
adoption rate for controlled substances
of nearly 99 percent for pharmacies and
15 HHS Office of the National Coordinator, The
ONC Doctors’ Perspective: Electronic Prescribing of
Controlled Substances (EPCS) Is on the Rise, and
We Must Work Together to Address Barriers to Use:
https://www.healthit.gov/buzz-blog/health-it/theonc-doctors-perspective-electronic-prescribing-ofcontrolled-substances-epcs-is-on-the-rise-and-wemust-work-together-to-address-barriers-to-use.
16 Burger, M. ‘‘Accelerating ePrescribing for
Controlled Substances.’’ HIT Perspectives:
Controlled Substances, February 2014. Retrieved
from https://www.pocp.com/hitperspectivescontrolled-substances/ on April 30, 2020.
Imambaccus N, Glace S, Heath R. Increasing the
uptake of electronic prescribing in primary care.
BMJ Quality Improvement Reports 2017;6:u212185.
w4870. doi:10.1136/bmjquality.u212185.w4870.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC5457970/pdf/
bmjqir.u212185.w4870.pdf on April 30, 2020.
Monegain, B. ‘‘E-prescribing takes off like a rocket.’’
Healthcare IT News, June 18, 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/eprescribing-takes-rocket on April 30, 2020.
17 Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa,
Maine, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Virginia have adopted mandates that will be in
effect in 2020. DrFirst. Mandates Driving EPCS and
PDMP Utilization. Accessed April 29, 2020. https://
drfirst.com/resources/regulatory-mandates/.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
82 percent for prescribers in 2019.18
CMS does not currently impose
penalties for providers prescribing
controlled substances under the Part D
program who do not use e-prescribing.
Rather, Part D plans may reject
improper transactions or transactions
that do not adhere to the CMS
transaction standards.
Given that the SUPPORT Act
generally mandates electronic
prescribing of a Schedule II, III, IV, or
V controlled substance under Medicare
Part D, we seek comment on the
following specific questions with
respect to assessing compliance with
EPCS requirements:
• What types of challenges might
discourage prescribers from
incorporating electronic prescribing into
their normal workflows? How could
CMS structure its EPCS policy to
remove roadblocks to effective adoption
of electronic prescribing for controlled
substances?
• What level of compliance with
EPCS would be appropriate to require
before levying any penalties on a noncompliant prescriber, and why? For
example, should we consider adopting a
percentage of prescribers threshold that
a practice must meet to be considered
compliant with EPCS requirements?
Should we instead consider specifying a
number or percentage of a practice’s
patients?
• What time period (or periods)
should CMS use to evaluate compliance
(for example, quarterly, semi-annually,
annually) and how should we
communicate information on
performance to the prescriber to drive
improvement?
B. EPCS Enforcement
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act
provides authority to the Secretary to
enforce and specify appropriate
penalties for non-compliance with the
EPCS requirements. To ensure
compliance with EPCS mandates, some
States have imposed penalties for
prescribers who fail to use EPCS. For
example, Pennsylvania enforces
prescriber penalties of $100 per
violation for the first through tenth
violations and $250 per violation for the
eleventh and subsequent violations, up
to $5,000 per year.19 Based on
stakeholder experience with the States
18 Surescripts, 2019 National Progress Report.
Accessed April 29, 2020. https://naspa.us/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/7398_2019-NPRBrochure-Web-Final.pdf.
19 Pennsylvania Department of Health Q&A on
Act 96 of 2018 and applicable Federal
requirements, revised 10/31/2019. Retrieved from
https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/Documents/
Programs/PA_EPCS_FAQ.pdf on May 1, 2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
and their varying penalties, we seek
comment on what, if any, penalties
stakeholders believe would be
appropriate for non-compliance with a
Federal EPCS mandate.
We note that the SUPPORT Act places
limits on the Secretary’s authority to
require Part D plans, MA organizations
offering MA–PD plans, or pharmacists
to verify that a practitioner has a waiver
or is otherwise exempt from EPCS
requirements,20 in addition to language
in section 1860D–4(e)(7)(C)(ii) of the
Act, which ensures that plans may cover
and pharmacists may dispense covered
Part D drugs from otherwise valid
written, oral, or fax prescriptions, and in
section 1860D–4(e)(7)(C)(iii) of the Act,
which ensures that Medicare
beneficiaries can designate a particular
pharmacy to dispense their covered Part
D drugs. We view those limitations as
important protections for Medicare
beneficiaries that will ensure continued
access to needed medications. We are
interested in feedback from the public
about the most appropriate ways to
encourage EPCS compliance in the face
of practical limits on real-time
compliance enforcement options.
Additionally, we seek feedback on
how we should implement the EPCS
requirement for prescribers of Part D
drugs who are not enrolled in Medicare
or Medicaid. We request feedback on
what policies would be most
appropriate within the SUPPORT Act’s
statutory limits to encourage EPCS
adoption among prescribers of Part D
drugs who are not enrolled in Medicare
or Medicaid.
We seek comment on the following
specific questions with respect to
enforcement:
• What penalties, if any, would be
appropriate for non-compliance with a
Federal EPCS mandate?
• How may Federal penalties affect
EPCS adherence?
• What mechanism(s) should CMS
use to enforce penalties among nonparticipating Medicare or Medicaid
prescribers?
• Are there other mechanisms CMS
can use to encourage non-participating
Medicare or Medicaid prescribers to use
EPCS?
• Are there any circumstances under
which penalties should automatically be
waived?
• How should CMS approach design
and use of an appeals process for
enforcement?
• If CMS were to impose civil money
penalties, what penalty structure
(including amounts) should be adopted?
20 See section 1860D–4(e)(7)(C)(i) of the Social
Security Act, as added by section 2003 of the
SUPPORT Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47155
• Should any details about penalties
for violations of section 2003 of the
Support Act be posted publicly? What
types of details should be included in
information available to the public?
• Should CMS assess penalties after
some interval following implementation
of this requirement? If yes, what
interval(s)?
• Should CMS assess penalties’
severity incrementally based on repeat
analyses demonstrating lack of
improved compliance? If yes, please
describe what type of analyses would be
most effective.
• Should penalties be significant
enough that a prescriber not eligible for
a waiver or exemption would be either
forced to comply with the electronic
prescribing requirement for controlled
substances, or stop providing such
pharmacologic care across all covered
classes of controlled substances? What
are the implications for patients in
either scenario?
C. EPCS Waivers
Section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act
requires that the Secretary use
rulemaking to specify circumstances
and processes by which the Secretary
may waive the EPCS requirement.
We are interested in receiving input
on circumstances for which the
Secretary should waive the EPCS
requirement, including those
circumstances specified by section 2003
of the SUPPORT Act. For instance, an
ONC Data Brief published in September
2019 21 indicated that larger physician
practices and practices owned by
hospitals had the highest rates of
physician EPCS, suggesting that smaller
practices may struggle to adopt the
technology and practice. As we discuss
in the following paragraph, we are
interested in stakeholder input on any
waivers and accompanying limits to the
waivers that would be appropriate, the
specific reasons that such waivers and
limits may be necessary, and any
operational or policy considerations that
we should take into account when
considering the need for and adopting
waivers in connection with the EPCS
requirement.
The SUPPORT Act specifies some
circumstances under which the
Secretary may waive the electronic
prescribing requirement with respect to
21 Parasrampuria et. al. ‘‘Electronic Prescribing of
Controlled Substances among Office-Based
Physicians, 2017.’’ Office of the National
Coordinator for Health Information Technology
Data Brief. Retrieved from https://www.healthit.gov/
sites/default/files/page/2019-09/
officebasedphysicianelectron
icprescribingofcontrolledsubstance2017.pdf on May
20, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47156
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
controlled substances that are covered
Part D drugs and also permits HHS to
develop other appropriate exceptions.
Given the numerous benefits of
electronic prescribing for prescribers
and patients, and in accordance with
section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act, CMS
seeks to define any exceptions narrowly.
We also want to clarify that all
prescribers may prescribe electronically
(provided it is done in accordance with
DEA regulations with respect to
controlled substances), even if a waiver
may apply, and we continue to
encourage clinicians who prescribe to
use electronic prescribing. The
circumstances that are listed in the
statute under which the Secretary may
waive the EPCS requirement are as
follows:
• A prescription issued when the
practitioner and dispensing pharmacy
are the same entity. We seek comments
on whether this exception is necessary,
and how these claims may be identified.
• A prescription issued that cannot be
transmitted electronically under the
most recently adopted version of the
National Council for Prescription Drug
Programs (NCPDP) SCRIPT standard.
We believe that the current adopted
standard NCPDP SCRIPT version
2017071 allows for most electronic
prescribing transmissions. We seek
comment on this assumption and on
any specific circumstances in which a
prescription for a controlled substance
could not be transmitted electronically
under this standard.
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner who received a waiver for a
period of time (not to exceed 1 year)
from the SUPPORT Act’s section 2003
requirement to use electronic
prescribing due to demonstrated
economic hardship, technological
limitations that are not reasonably
within the control of the practitioner, or
other exceptional circumstance
demonstrated by the practitioner. We
seek comment on the types of economic
hardships and technological limitations
that would be demonstrated to CMS,
and what other types of exceptional
circumstances would qualify.
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner under circumstances in
which, notwithstanding the
practitioner’s ability to submit a
prescription electronically, the
practitioner reasonably determines it
would be impractical for the individual
involved to obtain substances
prescribed by electronic prescription in
a timely manner, and the delay would
adversely impact the individual’s
medical condition. We seek comment
on the following:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
++ The types of circumstances that
would qualify.
++ Whether this must be explicitly
conveyed to CMS to ensure compliance.
++ If CMS should infer that certain
circumstances would qualify for an
exception.
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner prescribing a drug under a
research protocol. We seek comment on
the circumstances in which this
exception is necessary and how CMS
would identify these prescriptions.
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner for a drug for which the
Food and Drug Administration requires
a prescription to contain elements that
are not able to be included in electronic
prescribing, such as a drug with risk
evaluation and mitigation strategies that
include elements to assure safe use. We
seek comment on whether there are any
drugs currently under risk evaluation
and mitigation strategies for which
prescriptions are not conveyed
electronically or cannot be modified for
electronic transmittal.
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner—
++ For an individual who receives
Medicare hospice care; and
++ That is not covered under the
Medicare hospice benefit.
We seek comment on the
circumstances in which this exception
is necessary, and how this information
would be conveyed to CMS.
• A prescription issued by a
practitioner for an individual who is—
++ A resident of a nursing facility;
and
++ Dually eligible for Medicare and
Medicaid.
We recognize that electronic
prescribing for residents in nursing
facilities can be challenging due to
necessary three-way communication
involving the prescriber, the facility and
the pharmacy. Waiting for the prescriber
to transmit controlled substance
prescriptions electronically for new
admissions could create delays in
initiating urgent medication therapy
because a prescriber could be required
to log in to the electronic health record
or other health IT system to enter a
complete and compliant prescription
and may not have immediate access to
the system if not on site at the nursing
facility. We also recognize that early
versions of the NCPDP SCRIPT
standard, such as NCPDP SCRIPT
standard version 5.0 and 8.1, did not
support the workflows in the long-term
care setting that require prescribers to
issue a prescription for a patient to a
non-prescriber (such as a nursing
facility) that in turn forwards the
prescription to a dispenser (LTC
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pharmacy). Nonetheless, many key Part
D initiatives such as electronic prior
authorization are anchored within the
NCPDP SCRIPT standard version
2017071. CMS recognizes and is
encouraged by the NCPDP’s efforts to
ensure that e-prescribing standards
accommodate the unique needs of
nursing facility residents. As these
efforts progress, we believe that
electronic prescribing will become more
widely adopted in these settings.
Additionally, as nursing residents are at
high risk for infection, serious illness,
and death from COVID–19, we are
especially interested in how to assure
streamlined and timely prescribing. We
seek comments on our understanding of
the persistence of such challenges for
EPCS in the nursing facility setting and
on any other specific circumstances
which would support this exception.
Individuals who are dually eligible for
Medicare and Medicaid often receive
care in the home, through home and
community-based services (HCBS) or
home health services, instead of in a
facility like a nursing facility. We seek
comment on whether there are any
additional issues, gaps, situations or
barriers CMS needs to consider in
implementing section 2003 for duallyeligible beneficiaries receiving HCBS or
home health services.
We are also interested in receiving
input on any other possible exceptions,
such as in cases where a practitioner
reasonably determines it would be
impractical for the individual involved
to obtain controlled substances
prescribed using EPCS in a timely
manner and the delay would adversely
impact the individual’s medical
condition, or where EPCS would
present an economic hardship. If
commenters believe such exceptions
should apply, please provide details on
the circumstances that would require
the exception, and the reasoning on
whether the exception should be for a
certain timeframe or indefinitely, and to
whom the exception should apply.
III. Collection of Information
Requirements
Please note, this is a request for
information (RFI) only. In accordance
with the implementing regulations of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), specifically 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4),
this general solicitation is exempt from
the PRA. Facts or opinions submitted in
response to general solicitations of
comments from the public, published in
the Federal Register or other
publications, regardless of the form or
format thereof, provided that no person
is required to supply specific
information pertaining to the
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
commenter, other than that necessary
for self-identification, as a condition of
the agency’s full consideration, are not
generally considered information
collections and therefore not subject to
the PRA.
This RFI is issued solely for
information and planning purposes; it
does not constitute a Request for
Proposal (RFP), applications, proposal
abstracts, or quotations. This RFI does
not commit the U.S. Government to
contract for any supplies or services or
make a grant award. Further, we are not
seeking proposals through this RFI and
will not accept unsolicited proposals.
Responders are advised that the U.S.
Government will not pay for any
information or administrative costs
incurred in response to this RFI; all
costs associated with responding to this
RFI will be solely at the interested
party’s expense. We note that not
responding to this RFI does not
preclude participation in any future
procurement, if conducted. It is the
responsibility of the potential
responders to monitor this RFI
announcement for additional
information pertaining to this request.
In addition, we note that CMS will not
respond to questions about potential
policy issues raised in this RFI.
We will actively consider all input as
we develop future regulatory proposals
or future subregulatory policy guidance.
We may or may not choose to contact
individual responders. Such
communications would be for the sole
purpose of clarifying statements in the
responders’ written responses.
Contractor support personnel may be
used to review responses to this RFI.
Responses to this notice are not offers
and cannot be accepted by the
Government to form a binding contract
or issue a grant. Information obtained as
a result of this RFI may be used by the
Government for program planning on a
non-attribution basis. Respondents
should not include any information that
might be considered proprietary or
confidential. This RFI should not be
construed as a commitment or
authorization to incur cost for which
reimbursement would be required or
sought. All submissions become U.S.
Government property and will not be
returned. In addition, we may publicly
post the public comments received or a
summary of those public comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
Dated: July 20, 2020.
Demetrios Kouzoukas,
Principal Deputy Administrator for Medicare,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Dated: July 29, 2020.
Alex M. Azar II,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2020–16897 Filed 7–30–20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 680
[Docket No. 200713–0189]
RIN 0648–BJ64
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Removing the
Prohibition on Continuing To Fish
After a Partial Offload in the Bering
Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab
Rationalization Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS issues a proposed rule
that would remove the regulatory
prohibition on continuing to fish after a
partial offload in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands (BS/AI) Crab
Rationalization (CR) Program. This
proposed action is needed to provide CR
crab fishery participants operational
flexibility to conduct their business in
an efficient manner, in particular when
emergencies or special circumstances
arise. This proposed rule is intended to
promote the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) for BS/AI King
and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP), and other
applicable laws.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
September 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by FDMS
Docket Number NOAA–NMFS–2020–
0034, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20200034, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47157
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Records Office. Mail comments to P.O.
Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Electronic copies of the draft
Regulatory Impact Review (referred to as
the ‘‘Analysis’’) and the draft
Categorical Exclusion prepared for this
proposed rule may be obtained from
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan Mackey, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for Action
NMFS manages the king and Tanner
crab fisheries in the exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) of the BS/AI under the Crab
FMP. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council)
prepared the Crab FMP under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations
implementing most provisions of the
Crab FMP, including the CR Program,
are located at 50 CFR part 680.
Regulations implementing specific
provisions of the Crab FMP that pertain
to the License Limitation Permit
Program are located at 50 CFR part 679.
All relevant comments submitted on
this proposed rule and received by the
end of the comment period (See DATES)
will be considered by NMFS and
addressed in the response to comments
in the final rule.
Background
The CR Program was implemented on
April 1, 2005 (70 FR 10174, March 2,
2005). The CR Program established a
limited access program (LAP) for nine
crab fisheries in the BS/AI and assigned
quota share (QS) to persons based on
their historic participation in one or
more of those nine BS/AI crab fisheries
during a specific period. Each year, a
person who holds QS may receive an
exclusive harvest privilege for a portion
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 4, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47151-47157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16897]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Part 423
[CMS-3394-NC]
RIN 0938-AU25
Medicare Program: Electronic Prescribing of Controlled
Substances; Request for Information (RFI)
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 2003 of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that
Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act
(SUPPORT Act) requires generally that prescriptions for controlled
substances covered under a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan or
Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan (MA/PD) be transmitted by a
health care practitioner electronically in accordance with an
electronic prescription drug program, beginning January 1, 2021.
Further, section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act provides CMS with the
authority to, through rulemaking, enforce and specify appropriate
penalties for noncompliance with the requirement for electronic
prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS). The SUPPORT Act requires
CMS to specify, through rulemaking, circumstances and processes by
which it may waive the EPCS requirement. This Request for Information
(RFI) seeks input from
[[Page 47152]]
stakeholders about whether CMS should include exceptions to the EPCS
and under what circumstances, and whether CMS should impose penalties
for noncompliance with this mandate in its rulemaking, and what those
penalties should be.
DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided in the ADDRESSES section, no later than 5 p.m.
on October 5, 2020.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, refer to file code CMS-3394-NC.
Comments, including mass comment submissions, must be submitted in
one of the following three ways (please choose only one of the ways
listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this
regulation to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the `` ``Submit a
comment'' '' instructions.
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following
address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS-3394-NC, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD
21244-8010.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received
before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to
the following address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS-3394-NC, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Hain, (410) 786-7603, for
general inquiries related to the RFI. Joella Roland, (410) 786-7638,
for Part D electronic-prescribing issues.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inspection of Public Comments: All comments
received before the close of the comment period are available for
viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or
confidential business information that is included in a comment. We
post all comments received before the close of the comment period on
the following website as soon as possible after they have been
received: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on
that website to view public comments.
I. Background
In 2018, President Trump signed the Substance Use-Disorder
Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and
Communities Act, or the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, into
law, which mobilized Federal efforts to address the nation's ongoing
opioid crisis. Section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act mandates that the
prescribing of a Schedule II, III, IV, or V controlled substance under
Medicare Part D should be done electronically in accordance with an
electronic prescription drug program, beginning 2021, subject to any
exceptions, which the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may
specify. The circumstances that are listed in the statute under which
the Secretary may waive the EPCS requirement are at section 1860D-
4(e)(7) of the Act, as added by section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act, and
include--
A prescription issued when the practitioner and dispensing
pharmacy are the same entity;
A prescription issued that cannot be transmitted
electronically under the most recently implemented version of the
National Council for Prescription Drug Programs SCRIPT Standard;
A prescription issued by a practitioner who received a
waiver or a renewal thereof for a period of time as determined by the
Secretary, not to exceed one year, from the requirement to use
electronic prescribing due to demonstrated economic hardship,
technological limitations that are not reasonably within the control of
the practitioner, or other exceptional circumstance demonstrated by the
practitioner;
A prescription issued by a practitioner under
circumstances in which, notwithstanding the practitioner's ability to
submit a prescription electronically as required by this subsection,
such practitioner reasonably determines that it would be impractical
for the individual involved to obtain substances prescribed by
electronic prescription in a timely manner, and such delay would
adversely impact the individual's medical condition involved;
A prescription issued by a practitioner prescribing a drug
under a research protocol;
A prescription issued by a practitioner for a drug for
which the Food and Drug Administration requires a prescription to
contain elements that are not able to be included in electronic
prescribing, such as a drug with risk evaluation and mitigation
strategies that include elements to assure safe use;
A prescription issued by a practitioner--
++ For an individual who receives hospice care under title XVIII;
and
++ That is not covered under the hospice benefit under title XVIII;
and
A prescription issued by a practitioner for an individual
who is--
++ A resident of a nursing facility (as defined in section 1919(a)
of the Act); and
++ Dually eligible for benefits under titles and XVIII and XIX.
Since Part D was signed into law in 2003, electronic prescribing
(e-prescribing or e-Rx) has been optional for physicians with respect
to prescriptions made for covered Part D drugs. However, Part D
sponsors offering drug plans have been required to have the electronic
capabilities to support electronic prescribing. CMS adopted the first
set of standards for e-prescribing for Part D in 2005.\1\ Those
standards included the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs
(NCPDP) SCRIPT Standard Version 5, Release 0. Since then, CMS has
continued to adopt updated e-prescribing standards \2\ with the most
recent standard described in a final rule published April 16, 2018,
where CMS finalized its update of its Part D standards to NCPDP SCRIPT
standard version 2017071 for e-Rx and medication history, effective
January 1, 2020 (83 FR 16440).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 70 FR 67568.
\2\ CMS regulations adopting updated versions of the NCPDP
SCRIPT standard: 73 FR 18918 (NCPDP SCRIPT version 8.1) and 77 FR
688892 (NCPDP SCRIPT version 10.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We maintain a prescription drug events (PDEs) system to capture
Part D prescriptions processed (see OMB Control Number 0938-0982). The
PDE format includes a field in which the plan must indicate whether the
prescription was written via paper, electronic or telephonic means. CMS
has collected data on controlled substances and non-controlled
substances since the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) permitted the
electronic prescribing of controlled substances in 2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 75 FR 16284, including revisions adopted to 21 CFR
1304.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as HHS and other Federal departments and agencies work to
implement various provisions of the SUPPORT Act, including the
electronic prescribing requirements for controlled substances under
Part D, the health care system faces new challenges. The United States
is currently responding to an outbreak of respiratory disease caused by
a novel (new) coronavirus now detected in 50 States and the District of
Columbia. This virus has been named ``severe acute respiratory syndrome
coronavirus 2'' (``SARS-CoV-2''), and the disease it causes has been
named ``coronavirus disease 2019''
[[Page 47153]]
(``COVID-19''). In January 2020, HHS Secretary Alex M. Azar II
determined that a Public Health Emergency (PHE) exists for the United
States to aid the nation's health care community in responding to
COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as the PHE for the COVID-19 pandemic),
and on April 21, 2020, Secretary Azar renewed, effective April 26,
2020, the determination that a PHE exists. In March 2020, President
Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency. Certain
individuals, including older adults and persons with chronic
conditions, who comprise a predominance of the Medicare beneficiary
population, are at elevated risk of more severe illness and potential
death from COVID-19. The Centers for Disease Control's guidance on the
COVID-19 pandemic notes that ``people in their 50s are at higher risk
for severe illness than people in their 40s. Similarly, people in their
60s or 70s are, in general, at higher risk for severe illness than
people in their 50s. The greatest risk for severe illness from COVID-19
is among those aged 85 or older.'' \4\ As a result of the PHE, and as
the nation reopens, some individuals, such as those who are at high
risk, may continue to practice self-isolation and social distancing.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html.
\5\ See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have taken many regulatory and policy actions to swiftly aid the
nation's health care system to address effectively the COVID-19
pandemic. These actions include new flexibilities for telehealth and
other electronic technologies \6\ to ease the burden on providers and
help assure appropriate and safe care in a range of settings for
beneficiaries. Also, DEA has adopted certain new temporary
flexibilities to allow DEA-registered practitioners to prescribe
controlled substances without having to interact in person with some
patients, effective for the duration of the PHE.\7\ DEA's COVID-19
information page may be found at: https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/coronavirus.html. DEA has acknowledged the prevalence of paper
prescribing of controlled substances and attempted to address some of
the hardships it poses for prescribers and patients during the PHE. We
believe that social distancing is, in part, responsible for the
increase in EPCS during this PHE. In 2020, electronic prescribing
increased to 50 percent of all PDEs being prescribed as compared to 38
percent in 2019.\8\ With the use of electronic prescribing, a patient
and provider can conduct a visit via telehealth and then have the
prescription electronically transmitted to the pharmacy without having
to see each other in-person and risk transmitting COVID-19. Some
insurers, including Part D plans, may be permitting medication refills,
including for controlled substances, earlier than usual or for a more
extended period of time than was previously allowed. Pharmacies that
were not previously doing so may deliver medications, or deliver at no
charge, and communities and individuals have worked together to design
ways for vulnerable persons to continue to receive access to prescribed
medications in tandem with these new government and private sector
flexibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See https://www.cms.gov/files/document/covid-19-physicians-and-practitioners.pdf.
\7\ See https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/GDP/(DEA-DC-
023)(DEA075)Decision_Tree_(Final)_33120_2007.pdf.
\8\ Based on Prescription Drug Event data processed through
April 30, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA has the primary responsibility for establishing requirements
for prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances. In 2010, DEA
issued an Interim Final Rule with Request for Comment, ``Electronic
Prescriptions for Controlled Substances,'' that provided practitioners
with the option of writing prescriptions for controlled substances
electronically (75 FR 16236). The rule also permitted pharmacies to
receive, dispense, and archive these electronic prescriptions. Any
electronic controlled substance prescription issued by a practitioner
must meet the requirements in DEA's EPCS interim final rule. On April
21, 2020, DEA reopened the 2010 interim final rule to solicit comments
from the public on specific EPCS-related issues.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/21/2020-07085/electronic-prescriptions-for-controlled-substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the issuance of DEA's EPCS interim final rule in 2010, CMS
has seen a steady increase in the volume of controlled substance
prescriptions submitted electronically. For example, in 2018, 26.57
percent of controlled substance prescription drug events (PDEs) were
transmitted electronically. In 2019, e-prescribing for controlled
substances PDEs increased to 37.31 percent. However, in our 2020 data,
51.15 percent of those PDEs have been transmitted electronically.
States have instituted electronic prescribing requirements; some
include penalties for not using e-prescribing for controlled
substances. As of 2020, all states in the U.S. and the District of
Columbia allow electronic prescribing of controlled substances for
schedules II through V.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Schedule I drugs are not included in EPCS discussions
because they have no currently accepted medical use. See https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/#define for additional detail
on definitions of controlled substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCS provides multiple advantages over the traditional processing
of prescriptions.\11\ In addition to improving workflow efficiencies,
electronic prescribing of controlled substances can deter and help
detect prescription fraud and irregularities by requiring an extra
layer of identity proofing, two-factor authentication and digital
signature processes. It can also provide more timely and accurate data
than paper prescriptions. By allowing for the direct transmission of
electronic prescriptions for controlled substances between providers
and pharmacies or facilities, EPCS may also reduce the burden on
prescribers who need to coordinate and manage paper prescriptions
between staff, patients, facilities, other care sites, and pharmacies.
In addition, EPCS data is transmitted to Prescription Drug Monitoring
Programs (PDMPs), which can help inform providers of patients'
medication history at the time of prescribing. It is also important to
continue the assurance of privacy and
[[Page 47154]]
security in the prescribing process, such as by controlling prescriber
access through improved identity controls and authentication protocols.
EPCS can assure prescribers' identity more easily and may permit a
single workflow for prescribing both controlled and non-controlled
drugs, improving the overall prescribing process.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Phillips et. al. ``Market Guide for Identity Proofing and
Corroboration.'' April 24, 2018. Gartner, Inc. Retrieved from
https://www.fedscoop.com/gartner-guide-identity-proofing-corroboration-2018/ on April 30, 2020. Ryan, D. ``FinCEN: Know Your
Customer Requirements.'' February 7, 2016. Harvard Law School Forum
on Corporate Governance. Retrieved from https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/02/07/fincen-know-your-customer-requirements/#2b on April 30, 2020. Nix, M. ``Five Questions: Ken
Whittemore Talks Past, Present & Future of E-Prescribing Controlled
Substances.'' March 31, 2020. SureScripts. Retrieved from https://surescripts.com/news-center/intelligence-in-action/opioids/five-questions-ken-whittemore-talks-past-present-future-of-e-prescribing-controlled-substances?utm_campaign=IIA percent2FBlog
percent20Subscription&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_conten
t=85955401&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8xs36u7xTFZ-
ieOxJk3309SApbE7to_fnk1SZvz2jqwz0pA3k7TtW9byiOq2zBlheLInMOeajCMCKeQUT
zcEDP79HEaeXI52QiadhAYAWU3Px2eZc&_hsmi=85955401 on April 30, 2020.
Zhang et. al. ``T2FA: Transparent Two-Factor Authentication.'' June
15, 2018. IEEE Access. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8386653 on April 30, 2020. Konoth R.K.,
van der Veen V., Bos H. (2017) How Anywhere Computing Just Killed
Your Phone-Based Two-Factor Authentication. In: Grossklags J.,
Preneel B. (eds) Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2016.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9603. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007
percent2F978-3-662-54970-4_24 on April 30, 2020. Cal and Zhu.
``Fraud detections for online businesses: a perspective from
blockchain technology.'' Financial Innovation (2016) 2:20. Retrieved
from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s40854-016-0039-4.pdf on April 30, 2020.
\12\ HHS Office of the National Coordinator, The ONC Doctors'
Perspective: Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances (EPCS)
Is on the Rise, and We Must Work Together to Address Barriers to
Use: https://www.healthit.gov/buzz-blog/health-it/the-onc-doctors-perspective-electronic-prescribing-of-controlled-substances-epcs-is-on-the-rise-and-we-must-work-together-to-address-barriers-to-use
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the patient standpoint, EPCS may reduce the logistical burden
on patients who may otherwise be required to make multiple trips
between providers and pharmacies to transport paper prescriptions when
filling time-sensitive prescriptions while in pain or otherwise in need
of treatment with controlled substances, as Schedule II, III, IV, or V
drugs that may be used to treat a number of conditions. EPCS can lessen
the time needed to obtain prescriptions by minimizing trips to the
physician to pick up paper prescriptions for refills, minimize
transportation costs to and from the provider's office, and even help
lessen stigma, well-known to be associated with chronic pain when
opioid therapy is used as a treatment modality.\13\ EPCS' security
advantages also assure prescribers, patients, and pharmacies that
prescriptions are processed as intended. In addition to helping with
the reduction in fraud previously described, EPCS minimizes the
likelihood that prescriptions have been tampered with, since electronic
prescriptions are securely transmitted directly to the pharmacy from
health information technology, which minimizes the likelihood of
exposure to patients or other third parties with potentially malicious
intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Department of Health and Human Services Pain Management
Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force Report, May 2019: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pmtf-final-report-2019-05-23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Solicitation of Public Comments
We are issuing this RFI and requesting comment from stakeholders
regarding how the SUPPORT Act's EPCS requirements can be implemented
with minimal burden to those prescribers participating in the Part D
program during and after the PHE. We are committed to helping health
care providers streamline operations, and want to strongly encourage
prescriber EPCS adoption across the health care continuum as another
mechanism to further ease burden, ensure prescribing safety, and
improve beneficiary health and satisfaction.
We seek responses to this RFI from beneficiary and advocacy groups;
beneficiaries and caregivers; primary care and specialty providers;
health plans and supplemental insurers; state, local, and territorial
governments; research and policy experts; industry and professional
associations; long-term care facilities, hospice providers,
pharmacists, and pharmacy associations; and other interested members of
the public.
In the following sections of this RFI, we discuss compliance
assessments, enforcement (including penalties), and waivers. We seek
comments in response to questions related to each of these topics in
each subsection.
Commenters are requested to provide responses to the following
questions that are most relevant to their interest and experience. A
response to every question is not required. Additionally, commenters
may identify and comment on other issues that they believe are
significant for CMS to consider in implementing the SUPPORT Act's EPCS
requirements. Respondents are requested to draw their responses from
objective, empirical, and actionable evidence and to cite this evidence
within their responses whenever possible.
A EPCS Compliance Assessments
Based on a published report of 2019 data reflecting the majority of
prescribing activities across the country,\14\ 97 percent of U.S.
pharmacies were capable of processing electronic prescriptions for
controlled substances, yet only 49 percent of prescribers were capable
of electronically prescribing controlled substances. The same report
showed that 38 percent of controlled substance prescriptions were
electronically prescribed, while 85 percent of non-controlled
substances were electronically prescribed. Pain management specialists
appear to be using electronic prescribing for controlled substances
more often than other prescribers, and family practitioners are using
electronic prescribing less often. Electronic prescribing also varies
across practice size and ownership and among physicians who practice in
groups owned by a health plan, health maintenance organizations,
hospital, or other healthcare entity. Use of the technology does not
vary significantly between rural and urban areas, but it does vary
between states, likely associated with differences in regulations,
penalties, waivers, populations, and culture.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Surescripts. ``National Progress Report 2019.'' March 2020.
Retrieved from https://surescripts.com/docs/default-source/national-progress-reports/7398_ab-v2_2019-npr-brochure.pdf on April 20, 2020.
\15\ HHS Office of the National Coordinator, The ONC Doctors'
Perspective: Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances (EPCS)
Is on the Rise, and We Must Work Together to Address Barriers to
Use: https://www.healthit.gov/buzz-blog/health-it/the-onc-doctors-perspective-electronic-prescribing-of-controlled-substances-epcs-is-on-the-rise-and-we-must-work-together-to-address-barriers-to-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasons for this disparity between capability and practice are
likely to be multifaceted. For instance, we hypothesize that there may
be challenges associated with some prescribers' ability to
electronically prescribe controlled substances within their normal
workflow, and reluctance to alter workflow habits use new technology,
although the recent COVID-19-related need to shift to remote forms of
patient care may have already rapidly and substantially altered many
such preferences. Other prescribers may be dependent on health care
groups, clinics, or hospital systems to implement the necessary
technology. There are also costs associated with the adoption of
technology, which may disproportionately impact small or rural
practices or pharmacies. Though EPCS uptake continues to grow,\16\
based on pre-COVID-19 data, there is clearly more opportunity for
greater adoption of electronic prescribing of controlled substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Burger, M. ``Accelerating ePrescribing for Controlled
Substances.'' HIT Perspectives: Controlled Substances, February
2014. Retrieved from https://www.pocp.com/hitperspectives-controlled-substances/ on April 30, 2020. Imambaccus N, Glace S,
Heath R. Increasing the uptake of electronic prescribing in primary
care. BMJ Quality Improvement Reports 2017;6:u212185. w4870.
doi:10.1136/bmjquality.u212185.w4870. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5457970/pdf/bmjqir.u212185.w4870.pdf on April 30, 2020. Monegain, B. ``E-
prescribing takes off like a rocket.'' Healthcare IT News, June 18,
2015. Retrieved from https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/e-prescribing-takes-rocket on April 30, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substantial adoption of EPCS has occurred in the thirteen states
that require it.\17\ Some states have chosen to use penalties to
increase prescribers' compliance with EPCS requirements. For example,
New York mandated EPCS with a penalty for non-compliance and
subsequently experienced an EPCS adoption rate for controlled
substances of nearly 99 percent for pharmacies and
[[Page 47155]]
82 percent for prescribers in 2019.\18\ CMS does not currently impose
penalties for providers prescribing controlled substances under the
Part D program who do not use e-prescribing. Rather, Part D plans may
reject improper transactions or transactions that do not adhere to the
CMS transaction standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Virginia have adopted mandates that will be in effect in
2020. DrFirst. Mandates Driving EPCS and PDMP Utilization. Accessed
April 29, 2020. https://drfirst.com/resources/regulatory-mandates/.
\18\ Surescripts, 2019 National Progress Report. Accessed April
29, 2020. https://naspa.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/7398_2019-NPR-Brochure-Web-Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that the SUPPORT Act generally mandates electronic
prescribing of a Schedule II, III, IV, or V controlled substance under
Medicare Part D, we seek comment on the following specific questions
with respect to assessing compliance with EPCS requirements:
What types of challenges might discourage prescribers from
incorporating electronic prescribing into their normal workflows? How
could CMS structure its EPCS policy to remove roadblocks to effective
adoption of electronic prescribing for controlled substances?
What level of compliance with EPCS would be appropriate to
require before levying any penalties on a non-compliant prescriber, and
why? For example, should we consider adopting a percentage of
prescribers threshold that a practice must meet to be considered
compliant with EPCS requirements? Should we instead consider specifying
a number or percentage of a practice's patients?
What time period (or periods) should CMS use to evaluate
compliance (for example, quarterly, semi-annually, annually) and how
should we communicate information on performance to the prescriber to
drive improvement?
B. EPCS Enforcement
Section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act provides authority to the Secretary
to enforce and specify appropriate penalties for non-compliance with
the EPCS requirements. To ensure compliance with EPCS mandates, some
States have imposed penalties for prescribers who fail to use EPCS. For
example, Pennsylvania enforces prescriber penalties of $100 per
violation for the first through tenth violations and $250 per violation
for the eleventh and subsequent violations, up to $5,000 per year.\19\
Based on stakeholder experience with the States and their varying
penalties, we seek comment on what, if any, penalties stakeholders
believe would be appropriate for non-compliance with a Federal EPCS
mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Pennsylvania Department of Health Q&A on Act 96 of 2018 and
applicable Federal requirements, revised 10/31/2019. Retrieved from
https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/Documents/Programs/PA_EPCS_FAQ.pdf
on May 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the SUPPORT Act places limits on the Secretary's
authority to require Part D plans, MA organizations offering MA-PD
plans, or pharmacists to verify that a practitioner has a waiver or is
otherwise exempt from EPCS requirements,\20\ in addition to language in
section 1860D-4(e)(7)(C)(ii) of the Act, which ensures that plans may
cover and pharmacists may dispense covered Part D drugs from otherwise
valid written, oral, or fax prescriptions, and in section 1860D-
4(e)(7)(C)(iii) of the Act, which ensures that Medicare beneficiaries
can designate a particular pharmacy to dispense their covered Part D
drugs. We view those limitations as important protections for Medicare
beneficiaries that will ensure continued access to needed medications.
We are interested in feedback from the public about the most
appropriate ways to encourage EPCS compliance in the face of practical
limits on real-time compliance enforcement options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See section 1860D-4(e)(7)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act,
as added by section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we seek feedback on how we should implement the EPCS
requirement for prescribers of Part D drugs who are not enrolled in
Medicare or Medicaid. We request feedback on what policies would be
most appropriate within the SUPPORT Act's statutory limits to encourage
EPCS adoption among prescribers of Part D drugs who are not enrolled in
Medicare or Medicaid.
We seek comment on the following specific questions with respect to
enforcement:
What penalties, if any, would be appropriate for non-
compliance with a Federal EPCS mandate?
How may Federal penalties affect EPCS adherence?
What mechanism(s) should CMS use to enforce penalties
among non-participating Medicare or Medicaid prescribers?
Are there other mechanisms CMS can use to encourage non-
participating Medicare or Medicaid prescribers to use EPCS?
Are there any circumstances under which penalties should
automatically be waived?
How should CMS approach design and use of an appeals
process for enforcement?
If CMS were to impose civil money penalties, what penalty
structure (including amounts) should be adopted?
Should any details about penalties for violations of
section 2003 of the Support Act be posted publicly? What types of
details should be included in information available to the public?
Should CMS assess penalties after some interval following
implementation of this requirement? If yes, what interval(s)?
Should CMS assess penalties' severity incrementally based
on repeat analyses demonstrating lack of improved compliance? If yes,
please describe what type of analyses would be most effective.
Should penalties be significant enough that a prescriber
not eligible for a waiver or exemption would be either forced to comply
with the electronic prescribing requirement for controlled substances,
or stop providing such pharmacologic care across all covered classes of
controlled substances? What are the implications for patients in either
scenario?
C. EPCS Waivers
Section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act requires that the Secretary use
rulemaking to specify circumstances and processes by which the
Secretary may waive the EPCS requirement.
We are interested in receiving input on circumstances for which the
Secretary should waive the EPCS requirement, including those
circumstances specified by section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act. For
instance, an ONC Data Brief published in September 2019 \21\ indicated
that larger physician practices and practices owned by hospitals had
the highest rates of physician EPCS, suggesting that smaller practices
may struggle to adopt the technology and practice. As we discuss in the
following paragraph, we are interested in stakeholder input on any
waivers and accompanying limits to the waivers that would be
appropriate, the specific reasons that such waivers and limits may be
necessary, and any operational or policy considerations that we should
take into account when considering the need for and adopting waivers in
connection with the EPCS requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Parasrampuria et. al. ``Electronic Prescribing of
Controlled Substances among Office-Based Physicians, 2017.'' Office
of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology Data
Brief. Retrieved from https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/page/2019-09/officebasedphysicianelectronicprescribingofcontrolledsubstance2017.pdf on May 20, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SUPPORT Act specifies some circumstances under which the
Secretary may waive the electronic prescribing requirement with respect
to
[[Page 47156]]
controlled substances that are covered Part D drugs and also permits
HHS to develop other appropriate exceptions. Given the numerous
benefits of electronic prescribing for prescribers and patients, and in
accordance with section 2003 of the SUPPORT Act, CMS seeks to define
any exceptions narrowly. We also want to clarify that all prescribers
may prescribe electronically (provided it is done in accordance with
DEA regulations with respect to controlled substances), even if a
waiver may apply, and we continue to encourage clinicians who prescribe
to use electronic prescribing. The circumstances that are listed in the
statute under which the Secretary may waive the EPCS requirement are as
follows:
A prescription issued when the practitioner and dispensing
pharmacy are the same entity. We seek comments on whether this
exception is necessary, and how these claims may be identified.
A prescription issued that cannot be transmitted
electronically under the most recently adopted version of the National
Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP) SCRIPT standard. We
believe that the current adopted standard NCPDP SCRIPT version 2017071
allows for most electronic prescribing transmissions. We seek comment
on this assumption and on any specific circumstances in which a
prescription for a controlled substance could not be transmitted
electronically under this standard.
A prescription issued by a practitioner who received a
waiver for a period of time (not to exceed 1 year) from the SUPPORT
Act's section 2003 requirement to use electronic prescribing due to
demonstrated economic hardship, technological limitations that are not
reasonably within the control of the practitioner, or other exceptional
circumstance demonstrated by the practitioner. We seek comment on the
types of economic hardships and technological limitations that would be
demonstrated to CMS, and what other types of exceptional circumstances
would qualify.
A prescription issued by a practitioner under
circumstances in which, notwithstanding the practitioner's ability to
submit a prescription electronically, the practitioner reasonably
determines it would be impractical for the individual involved to
obtain substances prescribed by electronic prescription in a timely
manner, and the delay would adversely impact the individual's medical
condition. We seek comment on the following:
++ The types of circumstances that would qualify.
++ Whether this must be explicitly conveyed to CMS to ensure
compliance.
++ If CMS should infer that certain circumstances would qualify for
an exception.
A prescription issued by a practitioner prescribing a drug
under a research protocol. We seek comment on the circumstances in
which this exception is necessary and how CMS would identify these
prescriptions.
A prescription issued by a practitioner for a drug for
which the Food and Drug Administration requires a prescription to
contain elements that are not able to be included in electronic
prescribing, such as a drug with risk evaluation and mitigation
strategies that include elements to assure safe use. We seek comment on
whether there are any drugs currently under risk evaluation and
mitigation strategies for which prescriptions are not conveyed
electronically or cannot be modified for electronic transmittal.
A prescription issued by a practitioner--
++ For an individual who receives Medicare hospice care; and
++ That is not covered under the Medicare hospice benefit.
We seek comment on the circumstances in which this exception is
necessary, and how this information would be conveyed to CMS.
A prescription issued by a practitioner for an individual
who is--
++ A resident of a nursing facility; and
++ Dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.
We recognize that electronic prescribing for residents in nursing
facilities can be challenging due to necessary three-way communication
involving the prescriber, the facility and the pharmacy. Waiting for
the prescriber to transmit controlled substance prescriptions
electronically for new admissions could create delays in initiating
urgent medication therapy because a prescriber could be required to log
in to the electronic health record or other health IT system to enter a
complete and compliant prescription and may not have immediate access
to the system if not on site at the nursing facility. We also recognize
that early versions of the NCPDP SCRIPT standard, such as NCPDP SCRIPT
standard version 5.0 and 8.1, did not support the workflows in the
long-term care setting that require prescribers to issue a prescription
for a patient to a non-prescriber (such as a nursing facility) that in
turn forwards the prescription to a dispenser (LTC pharmacy).
Nonetheless, many key Part D initiatives such as electronic prior
authorization are anchored within the NCPDP SCRIPT standard version
2017071. CMS recognizes and is encouraged by the NCPDP's efforts to
ensure that e-prescribing standards accommodate the unique needs of
nursing facility residents. As these efforts progress, we believe that
electronic prescribing will become more widely adopted in these
settings. Additionally, as nursing residents are at high risk for
infection, serious illness, and death from COVID-19, we are especially
interested in how to assure streamlined and timely prescribing. We seek
comments on our understanding of the persistence of such challenges for
EPCS in the nursing facility setting and on any other specific
circumstances which would support this exception.
Individuals who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid often
receive care in the home, through home and community-based services
(HCBS) or home health services, instead of in a facility like a nursing
facility. We seek comment on whether there are any additional issues,
gaps, situations or barriers CMS needs to consider in implementing
section 2003 for dually-eligible beneficiaries receiving HCBS or home
health services.
We are also interested in receiving input on any other possible
exceptions, such as in cases where a practitioner reasonably determines
it would be impractical for the individual involved to obtain
controlled substances prescribed using EPCS in a timely manner and the
delay would adversely impact the individual's medical condition, or
where EPCS would present an economic hardship. If commenters believe
such exceptions should apply, please provide details on the
circumstances that would require the exception, and the reasoning on
whether the exception should be for a certain timeframe or
indefinitely, and to whom the exception should apply.
III. Collection of Information Requirements
Please note, this is a request for information (RFI) only. In
accordance with the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), specifically 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), this general
solicitation is exempt from the PRA. Facts or opinions submitted in
response to general solicitations of comments from the public,
published in the Federal Register or other publications, regardless of
the form or format thereof, provided that no person is required to
supply specific information pertaining to the
[[Page 47157]]
commenter, other than that necessary for self-identification, as a
condition of the agency's full consideration, are not generally
considered information collections and therefore not subject to the
PRA.
This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes; it
does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP), applications,
proposal abstracts, or quotations. This RFI does not commit the U.S.
Government to contract for any supplies or services or make a grant
award. Further, we are not seeking proposals through this RFI and will
not accept unsolicited proposals. Responders are advised that the U.S.
Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs
incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding
to this RFI will be solely at the interested party's expense. We note
that not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any
future procurement, if conducted. It is the responsibility of the
potential responders to monitor this RFI announcement for additional
information pertaining to this request. In addition, we note that CMS
will not respond to questions about potential policy issues raised in
this RFI.
We will actively consider all input as we develop future regulatory
proposals or future subregulatory policy guidance. We may or may not
choose to contact individual responders. Such communications would be
for the sole purpose of clarifying statements in the responders'
written responses. Contractor support personnel may be used to review
responses to this RFI. Responses to this notice are not offers and
cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract or
issue a grant. Information obtained as a result of this RFI may be used
by the Government for program planning on a non-attribution basis.
Respondents should not include any information that might be considered
proprietary or confidential. This RFI should not be construed as a
commitment or authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would
be required or sought. All submissions become U.S. Government property
and will not be returned. In addition, we may publicly post the public
comments received or a summary of those public comments.
Dated: July 20, 2020.
Demetrios Kouzoukas,
Principal Deputy Administrator for Medicare, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Dated: July 29, 2020.
Alex M. Azar II,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2020-16897 Filed 7-30-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
