An official website of the United States government
Here’s how you know
Official websites use .gov
A
.gov
website belongs to an official government organization in the
United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A
lock
(
) or
https://
means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive
information only on official, secure websites.
Interoperable exchange of health information or “interoperability” is critical for delivering appropriate care, reducing health care costs, and making health care more efficient (1-3). ONC is executing on a number of health IT provisions from the 21st Century Cures Act, such as the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA) and Information Blocking provision that seek to advance interoperability (4-5). As these provisions are implemented, it is important to monitor interoperable information exchange to evaluate present policies and undertake future actions to advance interoperability. This data brief presents the state of interoperability among hospitals, as of 2021. We present trends on information exchange and the availability and use of information at the point of care, while also highlighting key barriers to interoperability. Additionally, we highlight the methods hospitals used to exchange health information and their participation in national networks and health information exchanges (HIEs).
Figure 1: Percent of U.S. non-federal acute care hospitals engaging in electronically sending, receiving and integrating summary of care records and searching/querying any health information 2017-2021.

Table 1: Percent of hospitals having availability and use of patient health information electronically received from outside sources by hospital type, 2017 vs. 2021.
| Hospital Type | 2017 (%) | 2021 (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Electronic Health Information Available from Outside Sources | ||
| All Hospitals | 51 | 62* |
| Suburban/Urban | 61 | 71* |
| Rural | 38 | 48* |
| Medium/Large | 61 | 72* |
| Small (under 100 beds) | 41 | 52* |
| Use of Electronic Health Information Received from Outside Sources | ||
| All Hospitals | 55 | 71* |
| Suburban/Urban | 64 | 77* |
| Rural | 42 | 61* |
| Medium/Large | 64 | 78* |
| Small (under 100 beds) | 46 | 65* |
| Engagement in all Four Domains of Interoperability (see Figure 1) | ||
| All Hospitals | 41 | 62* |
| Suburban/Urban | 51 | 72* |
| Rural | 27 | 48* |
| Medium/Large | 50 | 74* |
| Small (under 100 beds) | 32 | 51* |
Figure 2. Percent of hospitals that upgraded EHRs to 2015 Edition and adopted bulk data export technology, 2021.

Table 2. Percent of hospitals that applied data export technology for specific uses among those that adopted bulk data export technology, 2021.
| Uses of bulk data export capability | % |
|---|---|
| Analytics and reporting | 84 |
| Population health management | 47 |
| Switching EHR systems | 12 |
| Have not used the capability yet | 12 |
Table 3: Percent of hospitals that often or sometimes send or receive summary of care records with sources outside their hospital system by method, 2021.
| Method | Send (%) | Receive (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Electronic Method Not Using Third-Party or Network | ||
| Provider portal that enables viewing of another organizations’ EHR system | 55% | 34% |
| Interface connection between EHR systems (e.g. HL7 interface) | 48% | 28% |
| Access to other organizations’ EHR system using login credentials | 53% | 26% |
| Electronic Method Using a Third-Party or Network | ||
| HISPs that enable messaging via Direct protocol | 68% | 58% |
| State, regional, or local HIE | 65% | 56% |
| EHR vendor-based network that enables exchange between users of a single EHR vendor | 44% | 43% |
| National networks that enable exchange across different EHR vendors (e.g. Carequality) | 47% | 45% |
| Non-Electronic Method | ||
| Mail or fax | 69% | 78% |
| eFax using EHR | 67% | 62% |
Figure 3: Methods used by hospitals to electronically find (or query) patients’ health information, 2021.

Figure 4: Average number of electronic methods hospitals used to send, receive, and find (or query) health information, 2018 and 2021.

Figure 5: Percent of hospitals that participate in national and state, regional, or local health information networks, 2018- 2021.

Table 4: Hospital participation in query-based national networks, 2018-2021.
| National Network | 2018 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|
| CommonWell Health Alliance | 19% | 29%* |
| e-Health Exchange | 25% | 29% |
| Sequoia Project’s Carequality | 20% | 34%* |
| EHR vendor’s network | 32% | 43%* |
Figure 6: Relationship between participation in each national network in 2021.

Interoperability continues to improve among hospitals. As of 2021, 88% of hospital engaged in electronically sending and obtaining patient health information, through either querying or electronically receiving summary of care records. The number of hospitals engaged in integrating patient health information into EHRs grew by 40% since 2017, with about three-quarters of hospitals engaging in this activity in 2021. These trends show progress in interoperable exchange.
Progress has been made in the rate at which hospitals report providers have electronic patient health information available at the point of care and use that information during 2017-2021. Rural and small hospitals’ rates of having information available at the point of care increased by over 26% reaching 48% in 2021, and nationally it grew over 20%, reaching 62% in 2021. Additionally, usage of information received electronically from outside sources by rural and small hospitals increased at twice the rate of hospitals nationally (over 40% vs. over 20%) between 2017 and 2021. Yet, these less resourced hospitals are still not on par with their counterparts, indicating the need to continue addressing challenges with having full access to electronic information from external sources.
Hospitals’ rapid improvements in interoperability could be attributed in part to the initial implementation of health IT provisions from the ONC Cures Act Final Rule (Cures Rule) and adoption of 2015 Edition certified technology. The Cures Rule updated the Health IT Certification Program to include new and updated criteria and standards that will advance interoperability. Nearly 90% of hospitals have adopted 2015 Edition certified technology and are well positioned to adopt these new and updated criteria and standards. Other data show that a large majority of hospitals have already done so (6). Additionally, seventy-four percent of hospitals adopted the bulk data export capability, as of 2021. The most common uses of bulk data export were for analytics and reporting (63%) and population and health management (35%), and, less so, for switching EHRs (12%).
Hospitals continued to use a variety of electronic exchange methods to achieve progress in interoperability. Compared to 2018, in 2021 hospitals were using more methods to send (3.8 out of 7), receive (2.9 out of 7) summary of care records, and find (2.7 out of 6) patient health information. The use of HISPs and HIEs were the most commonly used electronic methods for sending and receiving information. The use of HIEs and interface connections with EHRs were the most commonly used methods for finding patient health information. About 4 in 10 hospitals continued to participate in multiple networks, indicating possible challenges to exchange across different networks and thus reinforcing the need for having multiple networks. Policy activities that support cross-network exchange such as Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA) will help reduce the number of different networks and methods that hospitals need to use to support exchange.
Launched in early 2022, TEFCA aims to establish a universal policy and technical floor for nationwide interoperability and simplify connectivity for organizations to securely exchange information (7). Other provisions of the Cures Rule are being implemented now to help hospitals shift from simply establishing connectivity to optimizing and simplifying the use of multiple methods of exchanging information. However, some barriers to information exchange remain prevalent. For instance, 48% of hospitals reported one-sided sharing relationships in which they share patient data with other providers who do not in turn share patient data with the hospital (Appendix Table).
Given that a majority of hospitals (74%) reported the ability to integrate information into their EHRs, current policy efforts could increase the value of that integration. For instance, recent actions were taken to improve the quality of data from external sources by advancing the use of specific data elements, such as through the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI), and through the required use of standardized application programming interface (API) technology using the HL7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource (FHIR). Efforts such as these should help ensure that information is available, integrated into the EHR, and used at the point of care – all of which have further room for improvement and will ultimately drive improvements in care and secondary use of data, such as for research.
Non-federal acute care hospital: Hospitals that meet the following criteria: acute care general medical and surgical, children’s general, and cancer hospitals owned by private/not-for-profit, investor-owned/for-profit, or state/local government and located within the 50 states and District of Columbia.
Interoperability: The ability of a system to exchange electronic health information with and use electronic health information from other systems without special effort on the part of the user. This brief further specifies interoperability as the ability for health systems to electronically send, receive, find, and integrate health information with other electronic systems outside their organization.
Integrate: Whether the EHR integrates summary of care record received electronically (not eFax) from providers or sources outside your hospital system/organization without the need for manual entry.
Find: Whether providers at your hospital query electronically for patients’ health information (e.g., medications, outside encounters) from sources outside of your organization or hospital system.
Small hospital: Non-federal acute care hospitals of bed sizes of 100 or less.
Rural hospital: Hospitals located in a non-metropolitan statistical area.
Critical Access Hospital: Hospitals with less than 25 beds and at least 35 miles away from another general or critical access hospital.
Health information exchange (HIE): State, regional, or local health information network. This does not include local proprietary or enterprise networks.
Health information service provider (HISP): HISPs are network service operators that enable nationwide clinical data exchange using Direct Secure Messaging.
National network: Health information networks that are nationwide in scope. This includes multi-EHR vendor networks (e.g. Commonwell or e-Health Exchange) which can be used to exchange health information either directly through an EHR or health information exchange (HIE) vendor.
2015 Edition Certified Electronic Health Record (EHR) Technology: An EHR system that meets certification criteria requirements established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These criteria establish the required capabilities, standards, and implementation specifications that health information technology needs to meet in order to become certified under the ONC Health IT Certification Program. Certified health IT products can be used for participation in CMS quality reporting programs and State Promoting Interoperability Programs.
Data are from the American Hospital Association (AHA) Information Technology (IT) Supplement to the AHA Annual Survey. Since 2008, ONC has partnered with the AHA to measure the adoption and use of health IT in U.S. hospitals. ONC funded the AHA IT Supplement to track hospital adoption and use of EHRs and the exchange of clinical data.
The chief executive officer of each U.S. hospital was invited to participate in the survey regardless of AHA membership status. The person most knowledgeable about the hospital’s health IT (typically the chief information officer) was requested to provide the information via a mail survey or secure online site. Non-respondents received follow-up mailings and phone calls to encourage response.
This brief reports results from the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 AHA IT Supplement. The 2017 survey was fielded from January 2018 to May 2018; the 2018 survey was fielded from January 2019 to May 2019; and the 2019 survey was fielded from January 2020 to June 2020. Due to pandemic-related delays, the 2020 survey was not fielded on time and was fielded from April 2021 to September 2021. Since the IT supplement survey instructed respondents to answer questions as of the day the survey is completed, we refer to responses to the 2020 IT supplement survey as happening in 2021 in this brief. The response rate for non-federal acute care hospitals for the 2020 survey was 54 percent. A logistic regression model was used to predict the propensity of survey response as a function of hospital characteristics, including size, ownership, teaching status, system membership, and availability of a cardiac intensive care unit, urban status, and region. Hospital-level weights were derived by the inverse of the predicted propensity.
Pylypchuk Y., J. Everson. (January 2023). Interoperability and Methods of Exchange among Hospitals in 2021. ONC Data Brief, no. 64. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology: Washington DC.
Appendix Table: Percent of hospitals that experienced barriers when trying to electronically send, receive, or find health information to/from other care settings or organizations, 2021.
| Percent | |
|---|---|
| Barriers related to electronically sending patient health information | |
| Exchange partners’ we would like to send data to do not have an EHR or other electronic system to receive data | 52% |
| Exchange partners’ EHR system lacks capability to receive data | 64% |
| Difficult to find providers’ Direct address | 70% |
| Many recipients of care summaries report that the information is not useful | 38% |
| Cumbersome workflow to send the information from our EHR system | 28% |
| Difficult to locate Direct address of a provider | 61% |
| Receive error message when sending Direct messages to recipients | 15% |
| Barriers related to electronically receiving patient health information | |
| Difficult to match or identify the correct patient between systems | 57% |
| There are providers whom we share patients with that don’t typically exchange patient data with us | 67% |
| There are providers whom we electronically share patient information with that don’t typically share patient information with us | 48% |
| There are providers who share data with us but do not provide that data in the format that we request | 36% |
| There are providers who state that they cannot exchange information with us due to privacy laws (e.g. HIPAA) in situations where that does not seem appropriate | 9% |
| Other barriers related to exchanging patient health information | |
| Greater challenges exchanging data across different vendor platforms | 72% |
| Paying additional costs to exchange with organizations outside our system | 43% |
| Develop customized interfaces in order to electronically exchange health information | 54% |
| Contractual constraints between healthcare providers and health vendors limit our ability to exchange data with providers using certain systems | 24% |
Appendix Figure: Relationship between participation in each national network in 2018-2021.

Thank you for visiting the new beta version of the HealthIT.gov website! We’re continuing to make improvements behind the scenes. You may see some features and performance change during this time. We welcome your feedback using the "Submit Feedback" button at the bottom of the page to help us improve your experience!