Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
TX Medical Board's Restrictions on Telemedicine Bring on Lawsuit
The Texas Medical Board (TMB) voted in April to alter the practice of telemedicine within the state, but although the Board announced that its rule changes would increase telemedicine opportunities, there is room for debate. (See TMB April 14 press release, “TMB Adopts Rules Expanding Telemedicine Opportunities,” http://bit.ly/1GhLyVu.) The term “telemedicine” refers to the practice of providing medical advice and care through telephone, videoconference or other electronic means. Texas's new rules allow patients to receive medical care through telemedicine if they have previously received an in-person diagnosis of their condition from the telemedicine care provider. In addition, a patient who has not been given an in-person diagnosis by the remote care provider may receive care through telemedicine if a second licensed medical care provider is present with the patient to assist the remote care provider. What will no longer be allowed? The new rules prohibit a telemedicine provider from treating a patient he or she has not diagnosed in person or, at lease, diagnosed when the patient was in the presence of another licensed medical care provider. Once one of these initial consultations has taken place, however, the need for a second care provider during a telemedicine consultation will no longer be required.
In response to the TMB's action, the telemedicine company, Teledoc, filed suit in late April accusing the TMB of breaking anti-trust laws by limiting physician/patient interactions as a means to squelch competition. “It is clear that the medical board acted only when Teladoc consultations became sufficiently numerous to be perceived as a competitive threat to brick-and-mortar physician practices,” said Jason Gorevic, Teladoc's chief executive officer in a release announcing the lawsuit. (See Teledoc's April 29 press release, “Teladoc moves to block Medical Board rule that would restrict health care access for millions of Texans,” http://bit.ly/1M6GgEx. “We can't sit back and let a bad rule by the Texas Medical Board rob from millions of consumers and physicians the tremendous benefits of telehealth,” said Gorevic. “California, Colorado, North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia and dozens of other states have found solutions that embrace telehealth, and all of its benefits, while ensuring patient safety.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.