Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Substance Use Disorder Providers: 42 CFR Part 2 Now Enforceable

Client Alert

Does your practice treat patients with substance use disorders? Does your practice retain substance use disorder records? If the answer to one of those questions is “yes,” you will want to be aware of the recent updates to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) requirements.  

Part 2 extends patient privacy protections by applying stringent protections to a patients’ substance use disorder (“SUD”) medical records. Modifications to Part 2 under the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records Final Rule (“Final Rule”) went into effect on April 16, 2024, with a compliance date of February 16, 2026. The Final Rule modifications better aligned HIPAA and Part 2 standards and clarified previous Part 2 regulations. The following lists key changes that providers should be aware of:

Updated Penalties and Safe Harbor

The new Part 2 regulations apply HIPAA penalties to violations of Part 2. The regulations also create a “safe harbor” for investigative agencies (or those working on behalf of an investigative agency) that act with reasonable diligence before making a demand for records.[1]

Single Consent

The Final Rule “allows a single consent for all future uses and disclosures for treatment, payment, and healthcare operations.”[2]

Updated Content Requirements for Notice of Privacy Practices

The Final Rule creates specific content requirements that a Part 2 program must include in its Notice of Privacy Practices (“Notice”).[3]

A Part 2 Program must include specific information in the header of its Notice, including notifying patients of (1) how their health information may be used and disclosed; (2) their rights with respect to their health information; (3) how to file a complaint concerning a violation of the privacy or security of their health information; (4) their rights concerning their information, and (5) their right to have a copy of the Notice upon request.

In addition, a Part 2 program must include specific descriptions of how it will use and disclose patient records, a list of patients’ rights, such as the right to request restrictions of certain disclosures, a description of how a patient may exercise those rights, and a statement detailing the duties of the Part 2 program.

SUD Counseling Notes

Part 2 creates a new definition describing SUD counseling notes. Under Part 2, SUD counseling notes are “notes recorded (in any medium) by a Part 2 program provider who is a SUD or mental health professional documenting or analyzing the contents of conversation during a private SUD counseling session or a group, joint, or family SUD counseling session and that are separated from the rest of the patient's SUD and medical record.” [4]

The Final Rule mandates that a Part 2 program must obtain consent for any use or disclosure of SUD counseling notes, except:

  • To carry out the following treatment, payment, or health care operations:
    • Use by the originator of the SUD counseling notes for treatment;
    • Use or disclosure by the Part 2 program for its own training programs in which students, trainees, or practitioners in SUD treatment or mental health learn under supervision to practice or improve their skills in group, joint, family, or individual SUD counseling; or
    • Use or disclosure by the Part 2 program to defend itself in a legal action or other proceeding brought by the patient.
  • Use or disclosure that is required or permitted with respect to the oversight of the originator of the SUD counseling notes.[5]

The Final Rule also adds clarification that a written consent for a use or disclosure of SUD counseling notes may only be combined with another written consent for a use or disclosure of SUD counseling notes.[6]

Next Steps

Practices and providers will want to ensure that any policies are up to date and reflect the changes that are now enforceable under Part 2. We recommend engaging an attorney to review or update your current policies in order to ensure compliance with Part 2 updates.

To learn more about how the updates to 42 CFR Part 2 could impact your practice, please contact BMD Member Jeana Singleton at jmsingleton@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2001. 


[1] 42 CFR Sec. 2.3. See also, 89 Fed. Reg. 12474 (February 16, 2024), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-16/pdf/2024-02544.pdf.

[2] 42 CFR Sec. 2.33. See also, 89 Fed. Reg. 12476 (February 16, 2024), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-16/pdf/2024-02544.pdf. See also, Fact Sheet 42 CFR Part 2 Final Rule, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/regulatory-initiatives/fact-sheet-42-cfr-part-2-final-rule/index.html#ftn1.

[3] 42 CFR Sec. 2.22, See also, 89 Fed. Reg. 12475 (February 16, 2024), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-16/pdf/2024-02544.pdf.

[4] 42 CFR Sec. 2.11. See also, 42 CFR Sec. 2.12. See also, 89 Fed. Reg. 12474-12475 (February 16, 2024), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-16/pdf/2024-02544.pdf.

[5] 42 CFR Sec. 2.31. See also, 89 Fed. Reg. 12476 (February 16, 2024), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-16/pdf/2024-02544.pdf.

[6] Id.


CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.

House Republicans Propose Cuts to Medicaid to Finance Savings

House Republicans have introduced legislative language that proposes substantial cuts to the Medicaid entitlement program, aiming to achieve significant budget savings through policy changes. The proposed measures include stricter eligibility verification, work requirements for certain adults, and federal funding cuts to states providing coverage to undocumented residents. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed healthcare provisions would reduce spending by $715 billion and could result in 8.6 million fewer people having health insurance by 2034.

Protecting Your Image in the Age of AI-Generated “Deepfakes”

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed how we create and consume digital content, but it also poses significant risks. Among the most troubling developments in AI is the proliferation of AI-generated fraudulent content, often called “deepfakes”.