Med Mal News

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.”

NY Bill to Alter Med-Mal Limitations Period Progresses in Legislature

In June, New York's State Assembly passed a bill that would put New York in line with other states that allow medical malpractice victims to file lawsuits during a set period after they discover they have suffered injuries from malpractice. New York is currently alone in requiring such suits to be filed within 2 ' years of injury. This leaves many patients who have legitimate claims with no recourse, because they did not discover the cause of their injuries until years after they actually occurred. The bill (A285/S911) was sponsored in the Assembly by Helene Weinstein, D-Brooklyn, who said it was prompted by cases like that of Brooklynite Lavern Wilkinson, who died of lung cancer in 2013 at the age of 41. Her family claims that a 2010 medical examination missed the cancer. The proposed law would set the limitations period at 2 1/2 years from the time a person discovers that an actionable injury occurred.

'

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.”

NY Bill to Alter Med-Mal Limitations Period Progresses in Legislature

In June, New York's State Assembly passed a bill that would put New York in line with other states that allow medical malpractice victims to file lawsuits during a set period after they discover they have suffered injuries from malpractice. New York is currently alone in requiring such suits to be filed within 2 ' years of injury. This leaves many patients who have legitimate claims with no recourse, because they did not discover the cause of their injuries until years after they actually occurred. The bill (A285/S911) was sponsored in the Assembly by Helene Weinstein, D-Brooklyn, who said it was prompted by cases like that of Brooklynite Lavern Wilkinson, who died of lung cancer in 2013 at the age of 41. Her family claims that a 2010 medical examination missed the cancer. The proposed law would set the limitations period at 2 1/2 years from the time a person discovers that an actionable injury occurred.

'