https://triagehealthlawblog.com

Triage Health Law | Health Care Updates & Insights | Squire Patton BoggsTriage is written by the Squire Patton Boggs Health Care team and provides insights on Healthcare reform updates & law.Triage Health Law | Health Care Updates & Insights | Squire Patton Boggs Squire Patton Boggs MenuHome Contributors Contact Subscribe Triage Health Law Are You Ready? Deadline to Comply with HIPAA Requirements for Reproductive Health Care PHI December 23, 2024 By John Wyand and Gicel Tomimbang on October 28, 2024 Posted in HIPAA, Privacy, Regulations In response to the shifting legal landscape around reproductive health care, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) finalized amendments to the HIPAA Privacy Rule to strengthen privacy protections for highly sensitive protected health information (PHI) related (or potentially related) to reproductive health care. OCR announced the final rule on HIPAA Privacy Rule to Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy (Final Rule) on April 22, 2024, which became effective on June 25, 2024. The privacy limitations outlined in this post directly apply to all “Regulated Entities,” meaning that both covered entities and business associates must comply with the HIPAA requirements for PHI pertaining to reproductive health care set forth in the Final Rule.[1] Regulated Entities must comply with most of the Final Rule’s requirements by December 23, 2024. The deadline to comply with requirements pertaining to relevant updates to regulated entities’ the Notice of Privacy Practices is February 16, 2026. Continue Reading Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedIn Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Final Rules (“Final Rules”) Are Released: Plans and Issuers Must Prepare for January 1, 2025 Effective Date (US) By Kristine Woliver, Ima Nsien and Gabrielle Martin on October 21, 2024 Posted in HHS, Insurance, Labor and Employment, Regulations The long-awaited Final Rules amending the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”) were released on September 9, 2024, with the bulk of the requirements going into effect on January 1, 2025. As we previously reported here, in August 2023, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and Treasury (together, the “Departments”) published proposed rules further regulating insurance coverage for treatment for mental health and substance use disorders. Although the Final Rules appear less burdensome than the proposed rules, they do impose significant changes to the obligations of group health plans and health insurance issuers with a short time to achieve compliance. The key provisions are summarized below.    Key Changes in the Final Rules The Final Rules’ stated intent is to “strengthen consumer protections consistent with MHPAEA’s fundamental purpose,” which includes reducing burdens on access to benefits for individuals in group health plans or with group or individual health insurance coverage seeking treatment for mental health and substance use disorders (“MH/SUD”) as compared to accessing benefits for the treatment of medical/surgical (“M/S”) conditions. The Final Rules purport to achieve that goal through four key changes to the MHPAEA: Mandating content requirements for performing a comparative analysis of the design and application of each non-quantitative treatment limitation (“NQTL”) applicable to MH/SUD benefits.   Setting forth design and application requirements and relevant data evaluation requirements to ensure compliance with NQTL rules. Increasing scrutiny of network adequacy for MH/SUD benefits. Introducing core treatment coverage requirements to the meaningful benefit standard. Continue Reading Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedIn Texas Attorney General Settles with Healthcare AI Firm Over False Claims on Product Accuracy and Safety By Squire Patton Boggs on September 30, 2024 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Digital Health The Office of the Attorney General of Texas (“OAG”) announced a “first-of-its-kind healthcare generative AI” settlement with Pieces Technology, Inc. (“Pieces”). The settlement related to the Texas OAG allegations that Piece’s advertising and marketing claims about the accuracy of its generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) products in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act (“DTPA”), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.58. The Texas OAG states in its press release that the Piece’s investigation is a “First-of-its-Kind Healthcare Generative AI Investigation.” Squire Patton Boggs attorneys Julia Jacobson and Gicel Tomimbang discuss the OAG’s action and settlement on our Privacy World Blog, which you can read here. Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedIn Stark Law & Mailing Physician-Dispensed Prescriptions: From COVID-19 Waivers to Federal Legislative Action By Michele Munk on September 27, 2024 Posted in Legislation, Stark Law In August 2024, a federal district court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Community Oncology Alliance (“COA”), holding that the “in-office ancillary services” exception to the Stark Law does not permit physicians to dispense medications through the physician’s office and then mail prescriptions to the patient’s home.  COA v. Becerra, Case No. 23-cv-2168, Doc. 40, United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Aug. 30, 2024). COA sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) and CMS challenging the policies presented under certain of CMS’s Stark Law “Frequently Asked Questions” (“FAQs”) as violating the Medicare Act and Administrative Procedure Act.  COA alleged that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the regulations regarding the “in-office ancillary services” exception permitted mailing prescription drugs to patients.  In September 2021 and May 2023, CMS published FAQs taking the position that the “in-office ancillary services” exception does not apply when a patient receives an item outside the physician’s office, including prescriptions delivered by mail, as the prescription would not be dispensed to the patient in the physician’s office. COA argued the FAQs violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not following required rule-making procedures.  COA also alleged that if physicians are prohibited from mailing prescriptions to patients such regulation would violate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by preventing states from regulating how physicians may dispense cancer drugs to patients. Continue Reading Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedIn The Changing Labor Landscape for Healthcare Employers By Will Kishman on September 18, 2024 Posted in FTC, Labor and Employment, NLRB In 2024, healthcare employers have faced several new challenges and developments regarding traditional labor obligations.  Unions are becoming more prominent in healthcare, including by unionizing doctors at unprecedented rates and by becoming more involved in government-funded projects.  At the same time, federal agencies are imposing significant new labor obligations on healthcare employers, regardless of whether or not they have unions representing their employees.  While the Federal Trade Commission’s non-compete rule has garnered major attention (as we discussed further here and here), the National Labor Relations Board has its own new positions on restrictive covenants which arguably impact healthcare employers even more than the FTC rule.  These issues are covered further below.  For those interested in more detail, Squire Patton Boggs’ Healthcare Industry Group and Labor and Employment Practice Group will be discussing these developments at two upcoming webinars in October.  Those interested in a healthcare-focused employment law update should join us on October 22 for our webinar entitled Emerging Issues in the Healthcare Industry: What Healthcare Employers Need to Know by clicking this registration link.  Those interested in more detail specifically about labor law and labor union developments should attend our webinar on October 8 entitled Labor Law’s New Landscape: How Another Year of Groundbreaking Changes Will Affect Non-Union and Unionized Employers at this registration link. Continue Reading Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedIn FTC Non-Compete Ban Set Aside Nationwide By Squire Patton Boggs on August 30, 2024 Posted in Antitrust, FTC, Labor and Employment On August 20, 2024, a Texas federal judge permanently barred the implementation of a controversial Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation that would have invalidated tens of millions of existing non-compete agreements and precluded the adoption of new covenants. We discussed the FTC’s non-compete regulation earlier this year. The decision comes as a relief to employers that feared the FTC’s regulation would have made it nearly impossible to prevent unfair competition and protect employers’ investment in its employees and against the misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information. Squire Patton Boggs attorney Laura Lawless discusses the decision and its implications on our Employment Law Worldview Blog, which you can read here. Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedIn Singapore Issues Game-Changing Synthetic Data Guide for AI By Charmian Aw and Brendan Lai on August 23, 2024 Posted in AI, Singapore On July 15, 2024, Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Commission Singapore (PDPC) released a Proposed Guide on Synthetic Data Generation (Guide). The Guide is a resource within the Privacy Enhancing Technology (PET) Sandbox which aims to assist organisations in understanding the techniques and potential applications of Synthetic Data generation, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) without compromising sensitive data. In healthcare, where patient privacy and data accessibility are critical concerns, synthetic data presents a promising solution. For instance, it: Preserves privacy: With strict privacy and confidentiality necessary to protect highly sensitive and data, these rules often make data sharing difficult, slowing down research and innovation. Synthetic data offers a way around these challenges by mimicking the trends of real healthcare data without linking to actual patients. This allows healthcare organisations to avoid the complexities of data sharing agreements and privacy restrictions, thereby accelerating research and development while staying compliant. Improves treatments: By simulating patient data, healthcare providers can evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treatments and tools without compromising patient privacy. This not only improves the accuracy of medical tools but also helps identify potential issues before they are used in clinical settings. Enhances research and development: Synthetic data enhances the training and validation of machine learning models, particularly in medical imaging. This provides the ability to augment datasets with diverse and realistic images where real data is limited, thereby reducing costs and labour associated with annotating real images and allowing researchers to refine their models more effectively. Enables predictive analytics and personalised medicine: Synthetic data is a valuable tool in predictive analytics which is crucial for personalised medicine. Machine learning models trained on synthetic data can more accurately predict how patients will respond to treatments, leading to more personalised and effective care strategies. Reduces risks of data breaches: By mimicking real data without including personal information, synthetic data offers a secure alternative for organisations relying on data for insights. Expands data use in education and research: Synthetic data’s benefits extend beyond its primary applications. It can be used for educational purposes, allowing students and professionals to practice on realistic scenarios without compromising patient confidentiality. To learn more about Singapore’s Guide, please see our original blog post on our Privacy World blog. Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedIn Singapore Consults on Cybersecurity Guidelines for AI Systems By Charmian Aw on August 15, 2024 Posted in AI, Cybersecurity, Data Protection, Singapore As a digital technologies hub in the Asia Pacific region, Singapore is making a big push to advance Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies across various sectors, including healthcare. The promise of AI in managing Singapore’s ageing population and enhancing patient care and treatment more broadly cannot be overstated. This spans the ability to better predict and diagnose diseases, enable personalised medicine, and improve remote patient monitoring. With that said, the threat of cyber-attacks and other threats pose very real risks to these AI-driven outcomes being fulfilled. To address this issue, the Cybersecurity Agency of Singapore has published for public consultation, two proposed sets of guidelines for securing AI systems. The consultation closes on September 15, 2024. To read more about this development in Singapore, please see our original blog post on our Privacy World blog. Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedIn Medicare Part D Preemption: Supreme Court Review Uncertain   By Michele Munk on August 5, 2024 Posted in 10th Circuit, 1st Circuit, 8th Circuit, Medicare Part D, U.S. Supreme Court On July 29, 2024, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (“PCMA”) filed an opposition to Oklahoma’s petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the Tenth Circuit decision PCMA v. Mulready, 78 F.4th 1183 (10th Cir. 2023). Oklahoma seeks review of both ERISA and Medicare Part D preemption.[1] Mulready held that Medicare preempted Oklahoma’s Any Willing Pharmacy provision (“Challenged AWP”), which requires a Pharmacy Benefit Manager (“PBM”) to allow the participation of pharmacies into preferred pharmacy networks.[2] Mulready reasoned that Medicare Part D preemption is akin to field preemption and does not require an overlapping federal and state standard to conclude that the state law is preempted.[3] Applying field preemption, Mulready concluded that the Challenged AWP “detracts from the integrated scheme of [Medicare] regulations” by regulating Part D plans above what Medicare laws and regulations require, and as the state law did not concern licensing or plan solvency, it was preempted. Mulready could have stopped there but doesn’t. Mulready further held that under a conflict preemption standard, the Challenged AWP would still be preempted for Medicare Part D plans because Medicare has its own Any Willing Pharmacy provision (“Medicare AWP”),[4] and other regulations[5] that require Medicare Part D plans (and associated PBM) to allow pharmacies to participate in standard pharmacy networks but does not require participation in preferred networks. Continue Reading Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedIn In Purdue Pharma, the Supreme Court Fires a Canon of Construction Through Non-Consensual Third-Party Releases (US) By Squire Patton Boggs on July 16, 2024 Posted in Bankruptcy, U.S. Supreme Court On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a bankruptcy court does not have the statutory authority to discharge creditors’ claims against a non-debtor without the creditors’ consent (except in asbestos cases).  The decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma settles a long-standing dispute in the bankruptcy world that will have significant impact on Purdue Pharma and its hundreds of thousands of creditors, and more generally on the bankruptcy practice itself.  Squire Patton Boggs attorney Justin Cloyd discusses the case in detail on our Restructuring GlobalView blog, which you can read here. Tweet this post Like this post Email this post Share this post on LinkedIn Older Posts Stay Connected Subscribe By Email Your website url TopicsTopics Select Category 10th Circuit 11th Circuit 1st Circuit 2020 Election 21st Century Cures Act 340B Program 3rd Circuit 6th Circuit 8th Circuit 9th Circuit ACA Accountable Care Organizations AI Anti-kickback Statute Antitrust Artificial Intelligence Australia Bankruptcy Bond Financing Brexit California Cannabis/Hemp CARES Act China Civil Monetary Penalties Law Clinical Integration CMS Community Benefit Compliance CON Laws COVID-19 Cybersecurity Data Protection DEA Department of Health and Human Services Digital Health Dobbs DOJ Drug EEOC Electronic Health Records EPA ERISA EU Events Exclusion False Claims Act FCC FDA Florida Fraud and Abuse FTC Governance/Management HHS HIPAA Hospitals Illinois India Insurance International International Healthcare Labor and Employment Legislation Licensing Life Sciences Managed Care Medicaid Medical Device Medical Device Medicare Advantage Medicare Part D Mergers and Acquisitions NIH NLRB No Surprises Act Nonprofits Nurses Ohio OIG OSHA Payer/Insurance Reform Pharmaceutical Physician Practice Policy Price Transparency Privacy Proposed Rule Publications Quality and Performance Measures Regulations Regulatory Compliance Reimbursement Repeal and Replace Research Section 1135 Waivers Singapore Stark Law Supply Chain Tax TCPA Technology Telehealth U.S. Supreme Court Uncategorized United Kingdom USDA Archives Archives Select Month October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 December 2012 November 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 March 2012 January 2012 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 Recent Updates Are You Ready? Deadline to Comply with HIPAA Requirements for Reproductive Health Care PHI December 23, 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Final Rules (“Final Rules”) Are Released: Plans and Issuers Must Prepare for January 1, 2025 Effective Date (US) Texas Attorney General Settles with Healthcare AI Firm Over False Claims on Product Accuracy and Safety Stark Law & Mailing Physician-Dispensed Prescriptions: From COVID-19 Waivers to Federal Legislative Action The Changing Labor Landscape for Healthcare Employers SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS BLOGS Capital Thinking Down the Wire – Capital Markets Updates Employment Law Worldview Global IP & Technology Law Blog Global Investigations & Compliance Review Global Projects View Global Supply Chain Law Blog La Revue – Legal Updates from France Pensions and Benefits Privacy World Restructuring GlobalView Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog Sports Shorts The Public Finance Tax Blog The Trade Practitioner Triage Health Law UK Finance Disputes & Regulatory Investigations Blog frESH: Perspectives on Environmental, Safety & Health Triage Health Law Squire Patton Boggs Attorney Advertising Privacy Disclaimer About the Squire Patton Boggs Healthcare Blog The Triage Health Law Blog aims to foster a broader discussion about the rapidly evolving healthcare industry. Triage provides insightful commentary on a wide range of legal and policy issues impacting the health care sector, including the challenges and opportunities related to recent government action, privacy and cybersecurity concerns, litigation trends and developments, and other regulatory issues. READ MORE Copyright © 2024, Squire Patton Boggs. All Rights Reserved. Law blog design & platform by LexBlogenusen-US1730565301https://triagehealthlawblog.com

Sahypaňyzy redaktirläňmi?

Näme edýärsiň?