Tag: health

Curb Your Pollution: EPA Issues Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Pollution

EPA Issues Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Pollution from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and the Polymers and Resins Industries

On April 9, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final rule that is touted to provide critical health protections to hundreds of thousands of people living near chemical plants. The final rule, signed March 28, 2024, will reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including the toxic chemicals chloroprene and ethylene oxide (EtO). The rule implements sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act.

When fully implemented, the final rule will reduce more than 6,200 tons a year of over 100 air toxics – including EtO and chloroprene – from covered equipment and processes at plants in Texas and Louisiana, along with plants in other parts of the country including Delaware, New Jersey, and the Ohio River Valley.

As part of the final rule, the EPA is also issuing new emissions limits for dioxins and furans. This will reduce more than 23,000 tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) each year.

EPA’s final rule will also require plants to conduct fenceline monitoring if any of the equipment or processes covered by the rule use, produce, store, or emit EtO, chloroprene, benzene, 1,3- butadiene, ethylene dichloride or vinyl chloride. Fenceline monitoring is used to measure levels of pollution in the air around the perimeter of a facility. The fenceline monitoring provisions of the rule require owners and operators to ensure that levels of these six pollutants remain below a specified “action level.” Fenceline monitoring provides owners and operators the flexibility to determine what measures to take to remain below the action level, while ensuring that they are effectively controlling toxic air pollution.

The final rule will significantly reduce emissions of air toxins, especially those that are potentially harmful for surrounding communities. According to the EPA, these emission reductions will yield significant reductions in lifetime cancer risk attributable to these air pollutants, in addition to other health benefits.

©2024 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
For more on Air Pollution, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Recent Healthcare-Related Artificial Intelligence Developments

AI is here to stay. The development and use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) is rapidly growing in the healthcare landscape with no signs of slowing down.

From a governmental perspective, many federal agencies are embracing the possibilities of AI. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is exploring the ability of AI to estimate sentinel events and combat disease outbreaks and the National Institutes of Health is using AI for priority research areas. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is also assessing whether algorithms used by plans and providers to identify high risk patients and manage costs can introduce bias and restrictions. Additionally, as of December 2023, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration cleared more than 690 AI-enabled devices for market use.

From a clinical perspective, payers and providers are integrating AI into daily operations and patient care. Hospitals and payers are using AI tools to assist in billing. Physicians are using AI to take notes and a wide range of providers are grappling with which AI tools to use and how to deploy AI in the clinical setting. With the application of AI in clinical settings, the standard of patient care is evolving and no entity wants to be left behind.

From an industry perspective, the legal and business spheres are transforming as a result of new national and international regulations focused on establishing the safe and effective use of AI, as well as commercial responses to those regulations. Three such regulations are top of mind, including (i) President Biden’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI; (ii) the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) Final Rule on Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability; and (iii) the World Health Organization’s (“WHO”) Guidance for Large Multi-Modal Models of Generative AI. In response to the introduction of regulations and the general advancement of AI, interested healthcare stakeholders, including many leading healthcare companies, have voluntarily committed to a shared goal of responsible AI use.

U.S. Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI

On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI (“Executive Order”). Though long-awaited, the Executive Order was a major development and is one of the most ambitious attempts to regulate this burgeoning technology. The Executive Order has eight guiding principles and priorities, which include (i) Safety and Security; (ii) Innovation and Competition; (iii) Commitment to U.S. Workforce; (iv) Equity and Civil Rights; (v) Consumer Protection; (vi) Privacy; (vii) Government Use of AI; and (viii) Global Leadership.

Notably for healthcare stakeholders, the Executive Order directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish guidelines and best practices for the development and use of AI and directs HHS to develop an AI Task force that will engineer policies and frameworks for the responsible deployment of AI and AI-enabled tech in healthcare. In addition to those directives, the Executive Order highlights the duality of AI with the “promise” that it brings and the “peril” that it has the potential to cause. This duality is reflected in HHS directives to establish an AI safety program to prioritize the award of grants in support of AI development while ensuring standards of nondiscrimination are upheld.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability Rule

In the wake of the Executive Order, the HHS Office of the National Coordinator finalized its rule to increase algorithm transparency, widely known as HT-1, on December 13, 2023. With respect to AI, the rule promotes transparency by establishing transparency requirements for AI and other predictive algorithms that are part of certified health information technology. The rule also:

  • implements requirements to improve equity, innovation, and interoperability;
  • supports the access, exchange, and use of electronic health information;
  • addresses concerns around bias, data collection, and safety;
  • modifies the existing clinical decision support certification criteria and narrows the scope of impacted predictive decision support intervention; and
  • adopts requirements for certification of health IT through new Conditions and Maintenance of Certification requirements for developers.

Voluntary Commitments from Leading Healthcare Companies for Responsible AI Use

Immediately on the heels of the release of HT-1 came voluntary commitments from leading healthcare companies on responsible AI development and deployment. On December 14, 2023, the Biden Administration announced that 28 healthcare provider and payer organizations signed up to move toward the safe, secure, and trustworthy purchasing and use of AI technology. Specifically, the provider and payer organizations agreed to:

  • develop AI solutions to optimize healthcare delivery and payment;
  • work to ensure that the solutions are fair, appropriate, valid, effective, and safe (“F.A.V.E.S.”);
  • deploy trust mechanisms to inform users if content is largely AI-generated and not reviewed or edited by a human;
  • adhere to a risk management framework when utilizing AI; and use of AI technology. Specifically, the provider and payer organizations agreed to:
  • develop AI solutions to optimize healthcare delivery and payment;
  • work to ensure that the solutions are fair, appropriate, valid, effective, and safe (“F.A.V.E.S.”);
  • deploy trust mechanisms to inform users if content is largely AI-generated and not reviewed or edited by a human;
  • adhere to a risk management framework when utilizing AI; and
  • research, investigate, and develop AI swiftly but responsibly.

WHO Guidance for Large Multi-Modal Models of Generative AI

On January 18, 2024, the WHO released guidance for large multi-modal models (“LMM”) of generative AI, which can simultaneously process and understand multiple types of data modalities such as text, images, audio, and video. The WHO guidance contains 98 pages with over 40 recommendations for tech developers, providers and governments on LMMs, and names five potential applications of LMMs, such as (i) diagnosis and clinical care; (ii) patient-guided use; (iii) administrative tasks; (iv) medical education; and (v) scientific research. It also addresses the liability issues that may arise out of the use of LMMs.

Closely related to the WHO guidance, the European Council’s agreement to move forward with a European Union AI Act (“Act”), was a significant milestone in AI regulation in the European Union. As previewed in December 2023, the Act will inform how AI is regulated across the European Union, and other nations will likely take note of and follow suit.

Conclusion

There is no question that AI is here to stay. But how the healthcare industry will look when AI is more fully integrated still remains to be seen. The framework for regulating AI will continue to evolve as AI and the use of AI in healthcare settings changes. In the meantime, healthcare stakeholders considering or adopting AI solutions should stay abreast of developments in AI to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Copyright © 2024, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more on Healthcare, visit the NLR Health Law & Managed Care section.

Multiple Concussions Result in Greater Cognitive Deficits

A new study published in the Journal of Neurotrauma examined the lifetime traumatic injury and cognitive domain deficits following traumatic brain injury. Most interesting for those representing clients who sustained mild traumatic brain injuries is that the number of prior mild traumatic brain injuries and the role they play in affecting one’s cognitive abilities.

The study examined the longer-term cognitive effects of traumatic brain injury severity and the number of mild TBI’s in later life. The researchers examined the subset (n=15,764) of the PROTECT Study, a cohort assessing risk factors for cognitive decline between the ages of 50 and 90 years. The study found that those who had suffered at least a single mild TBI demonstrated significantly poorer attention scores at baseline compared with the no head injury group. Compared with those with no mild TBI’s, those in the 3 MTBI group manifested poorer baseline executive function and attention scores, while those who had suffered 4 or more mild traumatic brain injuries demonstrated poorer attention, processing speed, and working memory compared with those reporting no mild traumatic brain injuries. The researchers stated:

“TBI’s associated with fixed, dose and severity-dependent cognitive deficits. The most sensitive cognitive domains are attention and executive function, which approximately double the effect compared with processing speed and working memory. Post-TBI cognitive rehabilitation should be targeted appropriately to domain-specific effects…. Significant long-term cognitive deficits were associates with three or more lifetime MTBI’s, a critical consideration when counselling individuals post-TBI about continuing high-risk activities.”

The citation for the study is Lennon MJ, Brooker H, Creese B, Thayanandan T, Rigney G, Aarsland D, Hampshire A, Ballard C, Corbett A, Raymont V. Lifetime Traumatic Brain Injury and Cognitive Domain Deficits in Late Life: The PROTECT-TBI Cohort Study. J Neurotrauma. 2023 Jan 27. doi: 10.1089/neu.2022.0360. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36716779.

Article By Bruce H. Stern of Stark & Stark

For more personal injury legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

COPYRIGHT © 2023, STARK & STARK

Federal PFAS Drinking Water Standards: 2023 Is the Year

On Friday, October 7, 2022, the EPA formally sent its proposed federal PFAS drinking water standards to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for consideration and approval or rejection. The proposed rule cleared OMB review on November 30, 2022; however, the EPA has not yet released the proposed rule. While the details of the rule under consideration are not yet known, what is evident from the title of the document logged on the OMB website is that the drinking water standards will address PFOA and PFOS. At least from the document title, it does not appear that any other PFAS will be subject to Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulation at the moment.

The delay in releasing the proposed drinking water standards for over a month now, though, could suggest that the proposed rule may seek to regulate more than just PFOA and PFOS, and the EPA may be looking to shore up language and support language in the proposed rule for such a proposal in light of comments from the OMB. Similarly, many wonder whether the EPA proposed a limit so low that the OMB had concerns as to whether the limits were detectable. With the EPA keeping its proposed language a closely guarded secret for the time being, much of the discussions rest on speculation. What we do know is that he EPA is statutorily required to put forth a proposed standard before the first half of 2023, and it has publicly pledged repeatedly to act more quickly than that statutory requirements.

Thus, 2023 will see federal PFAS drinking water standards for at least two PFAS from the EPA and we predict that it is only a matter of days before the country sees the EPA’s proposal, which will kick off what promises to be an extremely contentious public comment period.

Now more than ever, the EPA is clearly on a path to regulate PFAS contamination in the country’s water, land and air. These regulations will require states to act, as well (and some states may still enact stronger regulations than the EPA). Both the federal and the state level regulations will impact businesses and industries of many kinds, even if their contribution to drinking water contamination issues may seem on the surface to be de minimus. In states that already have PFAS drinking water standards enacted, businesses and property owners have already seen local environmental agencies scrutinize possible sources of PFAS pollution much more closely than ever before, which has resulted in unexpected costs. Beyond drinking water, though, the EPA PFAS Roadmap from 2021 shows the EPA’s desire to take regulatory action well beyond just drinking water, and companies absolutely must begin preparing now for regulatory actions that will have significant financial impacts down the road.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2023 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

Will CMS’s Proposed Rule on “Identified Overpayments” Increase Reverse FCA Cases?

On December 27, 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a proposed rule which, in part, seeks to amend the existing regulations for Medicare Parts A, B, C, and D regarding the standard for when an “identified” overpayment must be refunded, pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the False Claims Act (FCA) reverse false claims provision. As written, the proposed rule would remove the existing “reasonable diligence” standard for identification of overpayments, and add the “knowing” and “knowingly” FCA definition. As a result, an overpayment would be “identified” when the entity has actual knowledge of an identified overpayment, or acts in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of an identified overpayment. And, a provider is required to refund overpayments it is obliged to refund within 60 days of such identified overpayment.

If this proposed rule is finalized, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) should be applying the same intent standard to their evaluation of potential reverse false claims and Civil Monetary Penalty liability.

The Lay of the Land

Currently, the applicable overpayment regulations state:

A person has identified an overpayment when the person has, or should have through the exercise of reasonable diligence, determined that the person has received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment. A person should have determined that the person received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment if the person fails to exercise reasonable diligence and the person in fact received an overpayment.

42 C.F.R. § 401.305(a)(2). In the 2016 Final Rule, CMS agreed “the 60-day time period begins when either the reasonable diligence is completed or on the day the person received credible information of a potential overpayment if the person failed to conduct reasonable diligence and the person in fact received an overpayment.” This reasonable diligence standard allows entities to not only determine credibility of allegations, or issues relating to, a potential overpayment but also, when credible, to conduct a properly scoped internal investigation, during which an entity also accurately quantifies any associated overpayment due for refund.

In the proposed rulemaking, CMS is suggesting instead the following standard:

A person has identified an overpayment when the person knowingly receives or retains an overpayment. The term “knowingly” has the meaning set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(1)(A).

31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(1)(A) defines “Knowingly” as any circumstance in which “a person, with respect to information—(i) has actual knowledge of the information; (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information.”

The currently proposed provision has similar effect to the language CMS proposed in 2012 and, after consideration of comments, ultimately rejected in the 2014 Final Rule (Medicare Advantage and Part D) and 2016 Final Rule (Medicare Part A and Part B). In that final rulemaking, CMS removed the “actual knowledge,” “reckless disregard,” and “deliberate ignorance” terms in favor of the reasonable diligence standard, leaving practitioners to argue that CMS had lowered requisite intent to a standard less than required by the FCA.

Potential Impact

The FCA is a fraud statute, requiring intent. If a company investigating the credibility, issue, and scope of a matter (i.e., exercising reasonable diligence) also diligently determines the scope of a possible refund obligation, it would be difficult for DOJ to credibly claim an entity has acted recklessly, or with deliberate indifference to repayment under the FCA. DOJ’s general practice has been to bring reverse FCA cases when a provider does not investigate credible allegations and does not refund associated overpayments, after identifying them. For example, in a 2015 case, DOJ attorneys stated in a court conference, “[T]his is not a question … of a case where the hospital is diligently working on the claims and it’s on the sixty-first day and they’re still scrambling to go through their spreadsheets, you know, the government wouldn’t be bringing that kind of a claim.” United States ex rel. Kane v. Healthfirst, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 370, 389 (S.D. N.Y. 2015).

It remains to be seen whether this change will result in an increased pursuit of reverse FCA cases. The proposed rule would eliminate an explicit diligence period (generally not to exceed six months, except in particularly complicated analyses, such as under the Physician Self-Referral or “Stark” Law) to ascertain the validity and amount of a potential obligation to refund an overpayment. The proposed rule does not explain whether providers, suppliers, and others still will have an opportunity to conduct a reasonably diligent inquiry into whether any obligation to refund exists at all, prior to the ACA 60-day clock starting to run. Ideally CMS would make clear in any preamble that the government still expects reasonable and professional efforts be undertaken before making refunds, even if that process may take some time to complete

Absent such clarity, the fact remains that it is difficult to “identify” an obligation to refund, much less any refundable amounts, without first validating the alleged overpayment and quantifying any obligation.

Additionally, this standard may prompt entities to submit an HHS-OIG self-disclosure before all facts are known. While OIG requires a disclosing party to conduct an internal investigation prior to submission, it is near impossible to thoroughly investigate issues and identify any refund 60 days from learning of a possible issue that might result in a refund (especially when multiple payors are involved). Even if a disclosing party notes within a self-disclosure that an investigation is ongoing, the disclosing party must certify that it will complete its investigation within 90 days of the submission date – which still may not be enough time based on the complexity of the allegations or claims review required. The resulting back-and-forth of incomplete information likely would create unnecessary delays in reaching a resolution and frustration among all parties involved.

We encourage all providers, suppliers, Medicare Advantage organizations, Part D participants, and other stakeholders to submit comments on this proposed rule. The public has until 5 p.m. ET on February 13, 2023 to submit comments, which are accepted, electronically or by mail.

Article By Kara (Schoonover) Sweet, Lisa M. Noller, and Lawrence W. Vernaglia of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more healthcare and health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Foley & Lardner LLP

Buying, Selling, and Investing in Telehealth Companies: Navigating Structural and Compliance Issues

A multi-part series highlighting the unique health regulatory aspects of Telemedicine mergers and acquisitions, and financing transactions

Investors in the telehealth space and buyers and sellers of telehealth companies need to account for a set of health regulatory considerations that are unique to deals in this sector. As all parties to potential telehealth transactions analyze their long term role in the telehealth marketplace, two of the central issues to any transaction are compliance and structure – both in terms of structuring the telehealth transaction itself and due diligence issues that arise related to a target’s structure.

The COVID-19 pandemic, combined with strained health care staffing and provider availability, have accelerated the growth of the telehealth, and start-ups and traditional health systems alike are competing for access to patient populations in the telehealth space. However, as we adjust to life with COVID-19 as the norm, the expiration of the federal Public Health Emergency (PHE) looms, and the national economy contracts, we expect that the remainder of 2022 and into 2023 will see consolidation as the telehealth market begins to saturate and the long-term viability of certain platforms are tested. Telehealth companies, health systems, pharma companies and investors are all in potential positions to take advantage of this consolidation in a ripening M&A sector (while startups in the telehealth space continue to seek venture and institutional capital).

This is the first post in a series highlighting the unique health regulatory aspects of telehealth transactions. Future installments of this series are expected to cover licensure and regulatory approvals, compliance / clinical delivery models, and future market developments.

Telehealth Transaction Structure Considerations

The structure of any given telehealth transaction will largely depend on the business of the telehealth organization at play, but also will depend on the acquirer / investor. Regardless of whether a party is buying, selling or investing in a telehealth company, structuring the transaction appropriately will be important for all parties involved. While a standard stock purchase, asset purchase or merger may make sense for many of these transactions, we have also seen a proliferation of, affiliation arrangements, joint ventures (JV), alliances and partnerships.  These varieties of affiliation transactions can be a good choice for health systems that are not necessarily looking to manage or develop an existing platform, but instead are looking to leverage their patient populations and resources to partner with an existing technology platform. An affiliation or JV is more popular for telehealth companies operating purely as a technology platform (with no core business involving clinical services being provided). For parties in the traditional healthcare provider sector that provide clinical services, an affiliation or JV, which is easier to unwind or terminate than a traditional M&A transaction, can allow the parties to “test the waters” in a new, combined business venture. The affiliation or JV can take a variety of forms, including technology licensing agreements; the creation of a new entity to house the telehealth mission, which then has contractual arrangements with the both the JV parties; and exclusivity arrangements relating to use of the technology and access to patient populations.

While an affiliation or JV offers flexibility, can minimize the need for a large upfront investment, and can be an attractive alternative to a more permanent purchase or sale, there can be increased regulatory risk. Entrepreneurs, investors, and providers considering any such arrangement should bear in mind that in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and proliferation of telehealth, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG) has expressed a heightened interest in investigating so called “telefraud” and recently issued a special fraud alert regarding suspect arrangements, discussed in this prior post. Further, the OIG’s guidance on contractual joint ventures that would run afoul of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) should be front of mind and parties should strive to structure any affiliation or JV in a manner that meets or approximates an AKS safe harbor.

Target Telehealth Company Structure Compliance

Where telehealth companies are providing clinical services, and are not purely technology platforms, structuring and transaction diligence should focus on whether the target is operating in compliance with corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) laws. The CPOM doctrine is intended to maintain the independence of physician decision-making and reduce a “profits over people” mentality, and prevent physician employment by a lay-owned corporation unless an exception applies. Most states that have adopted CPOM impose similar restrictions on other types of clinical professionals, such as nurses, physical therapists, social workers, and psychologists. Telehealth companies often attempt to utilize a so-called “friendly PC” structure to comply with CPOM, whereby an investor-owned management services organization (“MSO”) affiliates with a physician-owned professional corporation (or other type of professional entity) (a “PC”) through a series of contractual agreements that foster a close working relationship between the MSO, PC, and PC owner and whereby the MSO provides management services, and sometimes start-up financing. The overall arrangement is intended to allow the MSO to handle the management side of the PC’s operations without impeding the professional judgment of the PC or the medical practice of its physicians and the PC owner.

CPOM Compliance Considerations and Diligence for Telehealth Companies

A sophisticated buyer will want to confirm that the target’s friendly PC structure is not only formally established, but is also operationalized properly and in a manner that minimizes fraud and abuse risk. If CPOM compliance gaps are identified in diligence this may, at worst, tank the deal and, at best, cause unexpected delays in the transaction timeline, as restructuring may be required or advisable. The buyer may also request additional deal concessions, such as a purchase price reduction and special indemnification coverage (with potentially a higher liability limit and an escrow as security). Accordingly, a telehealth company anticipating a sale or fund raise would be well served to engage in a self-audit to identify any CPOM compliance issues and undertake necessary corrective actions prior to the commencement of a transaction process.

Below are nine key questions with respect to CPOM compliance and related fraud and abuse issues that a buyer/investor in a telehealth transaction should examine carefully (and that the target should be prepared to answer):

  1. Does target have a PC that is properly incorporated or foreign qualified in all states where clinical services are provided (based on the location of the patient)?
  2. Does the PC owner (and any directors and officers of the PC, to the extent different from the PC owner) have a medical license in all states where the PC conducts business (to the extent in-state licensure is required)? To the extent the PC has multiple physician owners and directors/officers, are all such individuals licensed as required under applicable state law?
  3. Does the PC(s) have its own federal employer identification number, bank account (including double lockbox arrangement if enrolled in federal healthcare programs), and Medicare/Medicaid enrollments?
  4. Does the PC owner exercise meaningful oversight and control over the governance and clinical activities of the PC? Does the PC owner have background and expertise relevant to the business (e.g., a cardiologist would not have appropriate experience to be the PC owner of a PC that provides telemental health services)?
  5. Are the physicians and other professionals providing clinical services for the business employed or contracted through a PC (rather than the MSO)? Employment or independent contractor agreements should be reviewed, as well as W-2s, and payroll accounts.
  6. Is the PC properly contracted with customers (to the extent services are provided on a B2B basis) and payors?
  7. Do the contractual agreements between the MSO and PC respect the independent clinical judgment of the PC owner and PC physicians and otherwise comply with state CPOM laws.
  8. Do the financial arrangements between the MSO, PC, and PC owner comply with AKS, the federal Stark Law, and corollary state laws and fee-splitting prohibitions, to the extent applicable?
  9. Is the PC owner or any other physician performing clinical services for the PC an equity holder in the MSO? If so, are these equity interests tied to volume/value of referrals to the PC or MSO (i.e., if the MSO provides ancillary services such as lab or prescription drugs) or could equity interests be construed as an improper incentive to generate healthcare business (e.g., warrants that can only be exercised upon attainment of certain volume)?

Telehealth companies considering a sale or financing transaction, and potential buyers and investors, would be well served to spend time on the front end of a potential transaction assessing the above issues to determine potential risk areas that could impact deal terms or necessitate any friendly PC structuring.

Article By Hannah E. Zaitlin, Mitchell D. Lindstrom, David S. Sanders, and Natasha Allen of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

FDA Updates Regulatory Definition of “Healthy” for the First Time Since 1994

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a proposed rule (“Proposed Rule”)[1] that updates the definition of the “healthy” nutrient content claim under 21 C.F.R. § 101.65(d) for the first time since its issuance in 1994. The Proposed Rule, published on September 29, 2022, notes that “nutrition science has evolved since the 1990s” and that the proposed changes are intended to make the regulation “consistent with current nutrition science and Federal dietary guidance.”[2]

FDA is accepting comments until December 28, 2022.  Stakeholders should note that the proposed amendments may require companies to remove “healthy” claims from current labels and may make new products eligible to bear “healthy” claims. The comment period affords impacted companies the opportunity to provide FDA with input that could modify the current Proposed Rule. K&L Gates’ FDA team can assist clients with submitting comments and with assessing the impact of the Proposed Rule.

Highlights of the Proposed Rule

The changes in the Proposed Rule align with the FDA’s 2016 changes to the nutrition labeling regulation at 21 C.F.R. § 101.9,[3] primarily by refocusing the attention from limiting fat to limiting sugar intake.  The proposal also addresses several areas to make the regulation more consistent with current nutrition guidelines; for example, the Proposed Regulation would permit water, avocados, nuts, and seeds to bear the “healthy” claim, whereas products such as highly sweetened cereals would not be eligible for the claim.[4] 

Under the existing regulation,[5] a “healthy” food must meet certain criteria, including limits on total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and minimum amounts (at least 10 percent of the Daily Value) of favorable nutrients (e.g., vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and dietary fiber).[6] In contrast, while continuing to place limits on the presence of certain nutrients (e.g., added sugar, sodium, saturated fat), the Proposed Rule’s updated “healthy” criteria take a very different approach to promoting the consumption of certain foods, consistent with the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, through the new concept of “food group equivalents.” Specifically, to meet the proposed “healthy” claim criteria, a food would need to contain minimum amounts of one or more of the following food groups or subgroups: fruit, vegetables, grains, dairy, and protein foods. FDA’s proposed table of “food group equivalents” is reproduced below:

FDA Proposed Rule – Food Group Equivalents

Food Group Food Group Equivalent

 Examples
Vegetable 1/2 cup equivalent vegetable 1/2 cup cooked green beans; 1 cup raw spinach
Fruit 1/2 cup equivalent fruit 1/2 cup strawberries; 1/2 cup 100% orange juice; 1/4 cup raisins
Grains No less than 3/4 oz. equivalent whole grain 1 slide of bread; 1/2 cup cooked brown rice
Dairy 3/4 cup equivalent dairy 6 oz. fat free yogurt; 1 1/8 oz. nonfat cheese
Protein foods 1 1/2 equivalent game meat, 1 oz. equivalent seafood, 1 oz. equivalent egg, 1 oz. equivalent beans, peas, or soy products, or 1 oz. equivalent nuts and seeds 1 1/2 oz. venison; 1 oz. tuna; 1 large egg; 1/4 cup black beans; 1/2 oz. walnuts

In a change from the current “healthy” regulation, the Proposed Rule distinguishes between undesirable fat (i.e., saturated fat) and desirable fats (i.e., monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats) in the diet. In this regard, the Proposed Rule reflects the impact of the 2015 citizen petition submitted by KIND LLC (Docket No. FDA-2015-P-4564[7]), a manufacturer of sweetened nut snack bars, which requested that FDA accommodate “healthy” claims for products containing monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats but that are not “low fat” as defined under 21 C.F.R. § 101.62(b)(2).  KIND filed its petition after receiving a warning letter from FDA in 2015, requesting that they remove the “healthy” claim from products due to disqualifying levels of fat from nut ingredients (e.g., almonds, peanuts).  In a press release issued with submission of its petition, KIND highlighted that the current “healthy” regulation permits products like fat-free chocolate pudding, sweetened cereals, and toaster pastries to qualify as “healthy,” whereas foods like almonds, avocados, and salmon were ineligible due to their fat content.[8] In response to KIND’s petition, FDA had been exercising enforcement discretion since September 2016 for certain products not low in fat but that contain predominantly mono and polyunsaturated fats.[9]

Under the Proposed Rule, FDA has eliminated total fat and cholesterol from consideration for “healthy” claims.  Also, while a food product must adhere to limits for added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, limits on unfavorable nutrients are no longer keyed to compliance with other nutrient content claim regulations (e.g., meeting the definition of “low saturated fat” under 21 C.F.R. § 101.62(c)(2)). The Proposed Rule expresses disqualifying levels for unfavorable nutrients as percentages of daily values under 21 C.F.R. § 101.9.

FDA summarizes the criteria for “healthy” claims by product type below.  Unlike the current regulation, the Proposed Rule would specifically allow all raw whole fruits and vegetables to qualify for the “healthy” claim because of their positive contribution to an overall healthy diet, as well as to allow water to bear the “healthy” claim:

FDA Proposed Rule – Eligible Products for “Healthy” Nutrient Content Claim

Product Criteria for bearing “healthy” claim
Raw, whole fruits and vegetables No additional criteria; all raw, whole fruits and vegetables may bear the claim.
Individual food products At least 1 food group equivalent per RACC from 1 food group, and Nutrients to limit.
Mixed products At least 1/2 food group equivalent each from at least 2 different food groups, and Nutrients to limit.
Main dish as defined at 21 CFR 101.13(m) At least 1 food group equivalent each from at least 2 different food groups, and Nutrients to limit.
Meal as defined at 21 CFR 101.13(l) At least 1 food group equivalent each from at least 3 different food groups, and Nutrients to limit.
Water Plain water and plain, carbonated water may bear the claim.

This proposed rule is likely the first of many that will bring FDA’s nutrient content claim regulations in line with its 2016 revisions to the nutrition labeling regulation.  The comment period for the Proposed Rule closes on December 28, 2022; comments can be submitted at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/29/2022-20975/food-labeling-nutrient-content-claims-definition-of-term-healthy#open-comment.

For more Food and Drug Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates.

FOOTNOTES

[1] 87 Fed. Reg. 59168 (Sept. 29, 2022), https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-20975.

[2] Id. at 59174.

[3] For more information, see FDA, Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label, https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/changes-nutrition-facts-label.

[4] Id.

[5] 21 C.F.R. 101.65(d).

[6] 87 FR 59168, at pg. 59172, https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-20975/p-57.

[7] The petition is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/kind-docs/citizen-petition.pdf.

[8] See KIND, Seven Years After KIND’s Citizen Petition, FDA Proposes New Definition of “Healthy,“ Press Release,  https://www.kindsnacks.com/media-center/press-releases/KIND+Citizen+Petition+FDA+proposes+new+definition+of+healthy.html

[9] FDA, Guidance for Industry: Use of the Term “Healthy” in the Labeling of Human Food Products, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-use-term-healthy-labeling-human-food-products

4 Frequently Asked Questions About MSO Investigations and 3 Defense Strategies

In the last decade, Management Services Organizations, or MSOs, became popular service providers and investment tools for the medical and health care field. Unfortunately, the way some MSOs are structured, they can violate several important laws against healthcare fraud, like the Stark Law or the Anti-Kickback Statute.

Because this is such a novel issue in the medical field, lots of healthcare providers have questions about it. Some want to know how they can defend themselves if they get accused of wrongdoing for their activity with an MSO.

Dr. Nick Oberheiden is an MSO investigation lawyer at Oberheiden P.C. Here are some questions that he frequently gets asked and a few defense strategies that can help.

FAQs About MSO Investigations

1. What are MSOs?

An MSO is a company that provides administrative services to medical professionals. They can help healthcare providers with their:

  • Human resources
  • Operations
  • Coding and billing services
  • Office space management
  • Compliance
  • Contract management

Healthcare companies can either contract with an MSO to provide these services or can outright sell the administrative wing of their practice to an MSO so they can focus on the medical side of their business.

2. Why are MSOs Problematic?

MSO arrangements can become legally problematic when they act as an investment tool for medical professionals. Physicians could buy an ownership stake in an MSO that provided services to, say, a pharmacy. Those physicians could then begin referring patients to that same pharmacy.

In theory, that referral is going to a company – the pharmacy – that neither the physician nor his or her immediate family members have a financial interest in. In reality, though, the distinction gets blurred if the MSO – and therefore the physician – makes money off the referral. This can arguably amount to a kickback, which is unlawful.

3. Is Law Enforcement Actually Looking Into MSOs?

Yes, the justice department or the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently begun investigating MSOs that appears to be a medium for illegal kickbacks from one healthcare provider to a referring physician.

Together with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), the DOJ has taken the position that MSOs that are only indirectly recouping physicians for referrals is enough to violate anti-kickback laws. In one case, the agencies are pursuing False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729) violations in addition to violations of the Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn) and the Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b).

However, not all MSOs have come under the scrutiny of federal law enforcement. The DOJ has not declared a blanket rule that all MSOs are unlawful. Instead, it is only targeting those that show the signs of potential healthcare fraud.

4. What are the Potential Penalties for Investing in the Wrong MSO?

At this stage, it is hard to tell. MSOs are still a new development, and we are only seeing the very first charges getting filed against physicians who invest in the “wrong” MSOs. Courts have not yet ruled whether MSOs can facilitate a kickback or amount to a false claim.

If courts do go along with the DOJ’s interpretation of the law, then physicians can face steep penalties for sending business to another healthcare facility that contracts with an MSO that they own or invest in.

The Anti-Kickback Statute is a criminal law that carries up to five years in prison for a conviction, as well as fines of up to $25,000 and program exclusion. The Stark Law is a civil law that, while it does not carry criminal sanctions or jail time, does impose:

  • Denial of payments provided
  • Disgorgement of ill-gotten gains
  • Civil penalties of up to $15,000 for each violation
  • Treble damages
  • Program exclusion

Defense Strategies for Investigations into Your MSO

If you do have an ownership stake in an MSO and are concerned about a potential investigation, or if you are interested in investing in one of these new companies and want to do it right, there are several things that you can do. While every case is unique, here are three defense strategies and compliance procedures that MSO investigation attorney Dr. Nick Oberheiden often recommends considering.

1. Look for Signs That an MSO is Problematic

Not all MSOs are attracting the attention of federal law enforcement. Instead, it is the ones that do not comply with the requirements of anti-kickback statutes and illegal referrals.

Some signs that an MSO is lacking in that department include:

  • A lack of a compliance officer in the company
  • No training regarding important laws like HIPAA, the Stark Law, or the Anti-Kickback Statute
  • The MSO is paid on a percentage basis, rather than through a flat fee (payments should be at fair market value rates)
  • The MSO charges unreasonably high service fees
  • There are incentives for investing physicians to refer clients to the company

All of these are strong signs that the MSO is at risk of civil or even criminal action for healthcare fraud and illegal referrals. Unfortunately, many of these signs also give an investing physician the power to increase his or her return on the investment – a feature that makes the investment seem especially lucrative.

2. Tighten Up the Compliance

If you are invested in an MSO and suddenly see proof that it was too good to be true, you are not powerless. You are a partial owner, after all. You can push the company to tighten up its compliance with anti-kickback laws. In the best cases, this can successfully protect you and avoid scrutiny from law enforcement. Even if it does not, though, it can reduce the restitution that you can be made to pay, and the efforts to fix the MSO can be used to show your good intentions.

3. Stress the Distance Between an MSO’s Ownership and Its Clients

At this point, we still have not seen whether law enforcement’s interpretation of the law will get adopted by a court. Until we know for sure that an indirect payment is enough for anti-kickback liability, a strong defense should be that the MSO’s ownership was too far removed from the MSO’s clients to amount to a violation of the law.

As Dr. Nick Oberheiden, an MSO investigation attorney at Oberheiden P.C., says, “The law is still very much in flux at this point. Kickbacks are generally seen to be direct payments for referrals, and the whole point of the MSO investment opportunity was to avoid that exact setup.”

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

For more healthcare and health investigations legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022

EMTALA in the Post-Dobbs World

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals with emergency departments and participating in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) programs to provide medical screening, treatment and transfer for patients with emergency medical conditions (EMCs) or women in labor.1 EMTALA, which was enacted in 1986 to address concerns about patient dumping, went unnoticed for many years, but has garnered heightened attention as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and more recently, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs).2

EMTALA is a federal law and expressly preempts state laws with which it directly conflicts. After the Dobbs decision was officially published in June, a number of states implemented laws that prohibited or restricted access to reproductive care. Many of these laws include potential civil sanctions and criminal liability for healthcare providers offering or performing these services regardless of the circumstances, including emergency situations. The Biden Administration, in contrast, has taken action to preserve access to reproductive care through a number of executive and federal agency actions. These actions are intended by the federal government to apply in all states, including those states where restrictions have been put in place. Following this activity, litigation between the federal government and several states has ensued to address potential conflicts between federal laws requiring the provision of access and state laws that prohibit or restrict access to reproductive health services. A summary of the current EMTALA landscape is set forth below.

EMTALA Requirements

Under EMTALA, hospitals with emergency departments (EDs) must provide a medical screening examination to any individual who comes to the ED, regardless of insurance status. EMTALA prohibits hospitals with EDs from refusing to examine or treat individuals with an EMC. Upon provision of a medical screening examination, hospitals must provide necessary stabilizing treatment for EMCs and labor within the hospital’s capability. If the hospital is unable to properly treat or stabilize the patient, the hospital must provide an appropriate transfer to another medical facility.

Under EMTALA, an EMC includes “a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in:

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part…”3

Many common pregnancy-related complications, such as preeclampsia or ectopic pregnancies, qualify as EMCs. However, certain state anti-abortion laws prohibit or criminalize abortions regardless of the existence of an EMC under federal law, which creates a potential conflict when an abortion is necessary to stabilize an EMC under EMTALA. As a result of this friction between state and federal law, EMTALA has received renewed attention at a federal and state level in recent months.

Executive Order on Protecting Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services

On July 8, 2022, after the Dobbs decision was officially issued, President Biden issued Executive Order 14076 (Executive Order), which directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit a report identifying steps to ensure all patients, including pregnant women and women experiencing pregnancy loss, receive the full protections offered by EMTALA. The Executive Order also directed HHS to consider updates to guidance on obligations under EMTALA.

CMS Memorandum and HHS Letter to Healthcare Providers

On July 11, 2022, in response to the Executive Order, CMS published a memorandum to State Survey Agency Directors to restate existing guidance for hospital staff and physicians in light of new state laws that prohibit or restrict access to abortion (Memorandum). The Memorandum reinforced CMS’ view that:

  • EMTALA mandates that all patients who come to a EDs and request examination or treatment must receive an appropriate medical screening examination, stabilizing treatment, and transfer regardless of any state law restrictions about specific procedures,

  • Only physicians and qualified medical personnel may make the determination of an EMC,

  • Hospitals should ensure that all staff who interact with patients presenting to the ED are aware of the hospital’s obligations under EMTALA,

  • Hospitals may not cite state law or practice as the basis for transfer,

  • Physicians’ professional and legal duties under EMTALA preempt any conflicting state law or mandate,

  • If a physician believes that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an EMC, the physician must provide that treatment, and

  • State law is preempted by EMTALA when it prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person or has a more restrictive definition of EMC.

The Memorandum also clarified that pregnant patients may experience EMCs including, but not limited to, ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features and that stabilizing treatment encompasses both medical and surgical interventions, such as methrotrexate therapy or dilation and curettage.

The Secretary of HHS also published on July 11, 2022 a letter to healthcare providers reminding them of their obligation to provide stabilizing medical treatment to their pregnant patients in accordance with EMTALA, regardless of the state in which the provider practices (Letter). The Letter also reiterated that:

  • any state laws or mandates which employ a more restrictive definition of EMC are preempted by EMTALA statute, and

  • the course of necessary stabilizing treatment is under the physician’s or other qualified medical personnel’s purview.

The State of Texas Sues the Biden Administration

On July 14, 2022, the Texas Attorney General brought suit against HHS and CMS to challenge the Memorandum and Letter relating to federal law obligations for pregnant patients.4 The complaint alleged that EMTALA does not preempt state law when state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person or draws the exception more narrowly than the definition of EMC under EMTALA. Specifically, Texas sought to enforce a state statute, the Human Life Protection Act, which would ban and criminalize abortions unless a woman “has a life-threatening physical condition arising from pregnancy that places her ‘at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed”(emphasis added).5 The complaint also alleged that EMTALA does not require a healthcare provider to perform an abortion if it is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an EMC. On August 23, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Lubbock Division) blocked enforcement of the Memorandum and Letter in the State of Texas on the basis that federal guidance did not preempt state law, exceeded the authority of EMTALA, and was issued without a proper notice and comment period. The Court found that, because EMTALA is silent regarding abortion and “how stabilizing treatments must be provided when a doctor’s duties to a pregnant woman and her unborn child possibly conflict,” “there is no direct conflict” between federal and Texas law with the end result that “EMTALA leaves it to the states”.6

The Biden Administration Sues the State of Idaho

On August 2, 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Idaho, alleging violation of EMTALA. Under Idaho’s proposed abortion law, which was slated to go into effect on August 25th, the performance of all abortions are criminalized regardless of the reason for which they may be performed including to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.7 Instead, the law permits physicians to raise two affirmative defenses to avoid criminal liability:

(i) The physician determined, in h/her good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and

(ii) Prior to the performance of the abortion, the pregnant woman reported the act of rape or incest to a law enforcement agency and provided a copy of such report to the physician.8

The DOJ’s complaint alleged that  Idaho’s law does not provide a defense when the health of the pregnant patient is at stake, which is considered to fall within the definition of an EMC under EMTALA. In addition, the DOJ asserted that the fear of criminal prosecution may lead providers to avoid performing abortions even when it is a medically necessary treatment to prevent severe risk to the patient’s health. On August 24, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho found that Idaho’s law conflicted with EMTALA and granted the federal government a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Idaho’s proposed abortion law.9 In contrast to the Northern District of Texas Court’s interpretation of the conflict between state law and EMTALA, the District Court of Idaho noted that found that Idaho’s criminal abortion statute deterred abortions given that it provided for an affirmative defense rather than an exception for the provision of emergency care and, therefore, obstructed EMTALA’s purpose.10

Looking to the Future

While EMTALA has been in place for decades, its applications in the post-Dobbs world continue to evolve and will be at the forefront in states with abortion restrictions, particularly where the scope of federal law obligations to provide stabilizing treatment for conditions that threaten the health of the pregnant patient conflict with state law exceptions or affirmative defenses.

The law, policy and regulatory climate surrounding the Dobbs decision is complex and quickly developing. The information included in this article is current as of writing, but it does not address all potential legal issues or jurisdictional differences, and the information presented may no longer be current. Readers should consult counsel regarding their specific situation.

FOOTNOTES

1 42 U.S.C. §1395dd.

2 For additional information regarding the Dobbs decision, please refer to the following resources: Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Overturns 50 Years of Precedent on Abortion Laws and Rights | Healthcare Law Blog (sheppardhealthlaw.com), WHLC Dobbs Series Part 1 Where are we now?: Sheppard Mullin Webinar.

3 42 U.S.C. §1395dd(e)(1).

4 State of Tex. v. Becerra, et al., No. 5:22-cv-185 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 14, 2022).

5 Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.

6 State of Tex. v. Becerra, et al., No. 5:22-cv-185 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 14, 2022), Memorandum Opinion and Order at 49.

7 Idaho Code § 18-622.

8  Idaho Code § 18-622(3).

9 U.S. v. Idaho, No. 1:22-cv-00329-BLW.

10 U.S. v. Idaho, No. 1:22-cv-00329-BLW, Memorandum Decision and Order at 26-31.

Article By Amy J. Dilcher and Arushi Pandya of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more health and health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

It’s Time To Review Your Online Patient-User Interface: DOJ Issues New Federal Guidance on Telemedicine and Civil Rights Protections

As online digital health services continue to enjoy broader use and appeal, federal regulators are concerned some telemedicine online patient-user interfaces fail to accommodate persons with disabilities and limited English proficiency. Such failures in “product design” can violate federal civil rights laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), according to new policy guidance jointly issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ).

The document, Nondiscrimination in Telehealth, is specifically directed to companies offering telemedicine services and instructs such covered entities to immediately take specific steps to comply with the various “accessibility duties” under federal civil rights laws. The guidance focuses on ensuring accessibility for two populations of users: 1) people with disabilities and 2) people with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

Who is Subject to these Rules?

The guidance refers to “covered entities” subject to these rules. Under the rules, “covered entities” are any health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance (in addition to programs and activities administered by either a federal executive agency or an entity created by Title I of the Affordable Care Act). While the guidance does not define what constitutes “receiving federal financial assistance”, HHS has historically held that providers who receive federal dollars solely under traditional Medicare Part B were not covered entities. However, a recently-proposed rule suggests HHS will significantly expand the scope of covered entities, and soon. Telemedicine providers should be prepared to comply with these federal laws.

People with Disabilities

The guidance explains that no person with a disability shall – because of the disability – be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a covered entity, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination by a covered entity. The requirements in the guidance is supported by several federal laws, including the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Affordable Care Act Section 1557, and the Rehabilitation Act Section 504.

Applying these federal civil rights protections to telemedicine services, the guidance states companies must make reasonable changes to their policies, practices, or procedures in order to provide “additional support to patients when needed before, during, and after a virtual visit.”

DOJ and HHS provided the following as examples of such “additional support” obligations:

  • A dermatology practice that typically limits telehealth appointments to 30 minutes may need to schedule a longer appointment for a patient who needs additional time to communicate because of their disability.

  • A doctor’s office that does not allow anyone but the patient to attend telehealth appointments would have to make reasonable changes to that policy to allow a person with a disability to bring a support person and/or family member to the appointment where needed to meaningfully access the health care appointment.

  • A mental health provider who uses telehealth to provide remote counseling to individuals may need to ensure that the telehealth platform it uses can support effective real-time captioning for a patient who is hard of hearing. The provider may not require patients to bring their own real-time captioner.

  • A sports medicine practice that uses videos to show patients how to do physical therapy exercises may need to make sure that the videos have audio descriptions for patients with visual disabilities.

People with LEP

The second area of the guidance is protections for LEP individuals under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Under Title VI, no person shall be discriminated against or excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

For telemedicine services, the guidance states that the prohibition against national origin discrimination extends to LEP persons. Namely, telemedicine companies must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons. Such “meaningful access” includes providing information about the availability of telehealth services, the process for scheduling telehealth appointments, and the appointment itself. In many instances, HHS states, language assistance services are necessary to provide meaningful access and comply with federal law.

These language assistance services can include such measures as oral language assistance performed by a qualified interpreter; in-language communication with a bilingual employee; or written translation of documents performed by a qualified translator

DOJ and HHS provided the following as examples of such “meaningful access” obligations:

  • In emails to patients or social media postings about the opportunity to schedule telehealth appointments, a federally assisted health care provider includes a short non-English statement that explains to LEP persons how to obtain, in a language they understand, the information contained in the email or social media posting.

  • An OBGYN who receives federal financial assistance and legally provides reproductive health services, using telehealth to provide remote appointments to patients, provides a qualified language interpreter for an LEP patient. The provider makes sure that their telehealth platform allows the interpreter to join the session. Due to issues of confidentiality and potential conflicts of interest (such as in matters involving domestic violence) providers should avoid relying on patients to bring their own interpreter.

What if Making These Changes is Expensive?

While not directly addressed in the guidance, the cost for implementing accessibility measures generally falls on the company itself. Federal ADA regulations prohibit charging patients extra for the cost of providing American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters or similar accommodations. In fact, a covered entity may be required to provide an ASL interpreter even if the cost of the interpreter is greater than the fee received for the telemedicine service itself. With respect to LEP interpreters, HHS issued separate guidance stating it is not sufficient to use “low-quality video remote interpreting services” or “rely on unqualified staff” as translators.

However, companies are not required to offer an aid or service that results in either an undue burden on the company or requires a fundamental alteration in the nature of the services offered by the company. This is an important counterbalance in the law. Yet, the threshold for what constitutes an “undue burden” on a company or a “fundamental alteration” to the nature of the services is not bright line and requires a fact-specific assessment under the legal requirements.

Conclusion

Telemedicine companies subject to the guidance should heed the government’s warning and look inward on patient-facing elements. The first step is to simply have the website and app platform reviewed (most particularly the patient online user interface) by a qualified third party to determine if its design and features are sufficiently accessible for people with disabilities, as well as LEP persons. That time is also a prudent opportunity to review the user interface to confirm it complies with state telemedicine practice standards, e-commerce rules, electronic signatures or click-sign laws, and privacy/security requirements. Because these laws have undergone rapid and extensive changes during the Public Health Emergency, it is recommended to conduct these assessments on a periodic/annual basis.

If a company believes the expense of making these product design changes to ensure accessibility would be prohibitively expensive, it should check with experienced advisors to determine if the changes would constitute an “undue burden” or “fundamental alteration.” Otherwise, federal guidance is clear that refusing to make reasonable changes can be a violation of federal civil rights laws.

Article By Kate L. Pamperin, Larry S. Perlman, and Nathaniel M. Lacktman of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more health and telemedicine legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP