Safe Harbors of the Federal Anti-Kickback ActThe OIG has adopted two safe harbors authorizing certain arrangements involving the donation of electronic prescribing technology and health records Electronic (“EHR”). The ports reflect an attempt to encourage the donation of this technology in circumstances where donations are unlikely to constitute incentives or rewards for generating business payable by federal health care programs. Electronic Prescribing Items and Services The electronic prescribing safe harbor protects the donation of hardware, software, information technology, and training services provided by certain donors to certain beneficiaries under the Medicare Part D program {Dunlop, 2007# 14} Specifically, the safe harbor only protects donations made by: (1) a hospital to its medical staff. (2) a medical group to its members; and (3) a Prescription Drug Plan (“PDP”) or Medicare Advantage Organization (“MA”) to prescribing health care professionals or in-network pharmacies and pharmacists. {Dunlop, 2007 #14}Donations of electronic prescribing technology must be documented by the parties in a signed writing specifying the costs incurred by the donor for the technology provided. Donors may not select recipients based on the volume or value of referrals or other business generated between the parties, and grantees may not condition their business relationships with potential donors on the provision of technology. electronic prescription. {Dunlop, 2007 #14} Additionally, donated technology must be compatible with other electronic prescribing and health records systems, and donors cannot restrict the recipient's right or ability to use the technology for all patients, regardless of payer status. EHR Articles and Services...... middle of paper .... .... “addressable”. A covered entity must implement a required implementation specification, but it is not required to implement an addressable specification if it has determined that the specification is not a reasonable and appropriate safeguard given the environment operational status of the entity and the likely protective effect of the safeguard. If the implementation specification is determined not to be a reasonable and appropriate response to the entity's security needs, the entity must implement an equivalent alternative, if reasonable and appropriate. Where no reasonable and appropriate alternative exists, the entity is not required to implement any safeguard measures. However, in situations where an entity decides not to implement an addressable specification, the entity must document the reasons why it determined that this implementation specification was unreasonable and inappropriate..