Privacy and Data Security

What if you didn’t have to take time out of your day to see a physician in person when you needed a prescription? What if a diagnosis could be delivered over video chat? What if your psychiatrist was available at the press of a button or swipe on your screen?

These options are fast becoming a reality, as telehealth (or telemedicine) continues to take hold in a health care system that is desperate for increased efficiency and higher quality outcomes. And while telehealth offers exciting new possibilities in terms of convenience and access for patients, it also poses new regulatory challenges for industry stakeholders still learning the new rules of the game in today’s digital health ecosystem.

The Chronic Care Act

One of the biggest drivers of change in the industry right now is the Chronic Care Act. Last month, as part of the House and Senate budget deal to fund the government through March 23, legislators included the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act of 2017, which will increase reimbursement for a lot of different telemedicine programs.

For example, if you went to a rural hospital and they didn’t have a stroke neurologist and you were having a stroke, you would have an ED doctor with no stroke specialty diagnosing you—not an ideal situation. With telemedicine, it’s now possible for rural doctors to consult with specialty doctors at renowned sites, which the government will fund thanks to the Chronic Care Act. Continue Reading Telehealth and the Changing Regulatory Landscape: Opportunities and Challenges in the Digital Health Ecosystem

McDermott’s Benefits Emerging Leaders Working Group provides benefit professionals with tools to better serve employees in an ever-changing and evolving benefits landscape.

Presentations will tackle the latest benefits hot topics and best practice solutions, supplemented with important networking opportunities aimed to connect tomorrow’s benefit leaders with a broad network of professionals.

Planned agenda topics include:

  • What’s Happening in Washington?
  • Lessons from an RFP
  • Lunch Discussion: Changing Behavior through Benefits Communication
  • Global Benefit Plans
  • Moderated Group Discussion (including Voluntary Benefits)

Register Now.

Throughout 2017, the health care and life sciences industries experienced a widespread proliferation of digital health innovation that presents challenges to traditional notions of health care delivery and payment as well as product research, development and commercialization for both long-standing and new stakeholders. At the same time, lawmakers and regulators made meaningful progress toward modernizing the existing legal framework in a way that will both adequately protect patients and consumers and support and encourage continued innovation, but their efforts have not kept pace with what has become the light speed of innovation. As a result, some obstacles, misalignment and ambiguity remain.

We are pleased to bring you this review of key developments that shaped digital health in 2017, along with planning considerations and predictions for the digital health frontier in the year ahead.

Continue Reading.

As the Federal Communications Commission repeals the Open Internet Order—more commonly known as the net-neutrality rules—health care consumers and providers have been left wondering how this change will affect their ability to receive and deliver health care using digital health tools. In this On the Subject, we outline how changes in internet access will affect digital health and what the regulatory landscape will look like in the coming months and years.

Continue Reading.

Whilst 2017 was anticipated to be a fairly static year for UK employment law, that did not in fact prove to be the case, and there were various notable developments. To a large degree, 2018 is likely to be defined by the ongoing Brexit negotiations and the passage of the EU Withdrawal Bill, which will, amongst other things, lay the framework for the future movement of EU workers to the United Kingdom. Employers should, however, be aware of some additional key developments on the horizon.

Continue Reading.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act is having its moment. At least 32 class action lawsuits have been filed by Illinois residents in state court in the past two months challenging the collection, use and storage of biometric data by companies in the state. This may cause a reassessment of company strategies and development of new defenses in the use of advancing biometric technology.

Continue Reading.

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology recently released a report detailing user experience research on patient access to health data. The Report sought to examine the experiences of individuals and processes of health systems, with commentary from medical record fulfillment administrators, to determine how the medical record request process can be improved for consumers.

Continue reading.

Jennifer Geetter and Lisa Schmitz Mazur wrote this bylined article on the regulatory implications of technology-supported devices, resources, and solutions that facilitate health patient-provider interaction. “Health industry regulators are struggling with how to apply the existing privacy regulatory regime, and the permitted uses and disclosures for which they provide, in this new world of healthcare innovation,” the authors wrote.

Continue reading.

Jennifer Geetter and Dale Van Demark wrote this bylined article on how companies must manage and govern their use of digital healthcare information assets. “Organizations will need to design and implement digital governance structures that … include additional components and organizational stakeholders, in order to meet the business and strategic demands of the digital health revolution,” the authors wrote.

Continue Reading.

Amanda Enyeart and Lisa Schmitz Mazur wrote this bylined article explaining how the HHS Office of Inspector General used a survey by the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program run by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to conclude that CMS made $729 million in inappropriate EHR incentive payments to physicians out of some $6 billion in such payments during the review period.

Read the full article.