Photo of Bernadette M. Broccolo

 

Bernadette M. Broccolo has been counseling health industry organizations for more than 37 years on leading-edge health industry relationship formation and realignments. Her areas of concentration include privacy, technology contracting, corporate governance, human subject protection and federal taxation of exempt organizations. Bernadette speaks and writes frequently on emerging health care topics of importance to her clients and the industry. Read Bernadette Broccolo's full bio.

Digital health companies are producing increasingly innovative products at a rapidly accelerating pace, fueled in large part by the expansive healthcare data ecosystem and the data strategies for harnessing the power of that ecosystem. The essential role data strategies play make it imperative to address the data-related legal and regulatory considerations at the outset of the innovation initiative and throughout the development and deployment lifecycle so as to protect your investment in the short and long term.

The Evolution of Digital Health

Digital health today consists of four key components: electronic health records, data analytics, telehealth, and patient and consumer engagement tools. Electronic health records were most likely first, followed very closely by data analytics. Then telehealth deployment rapidly increased in response to both demand by patients and providers, the improved care delivery and access it offers, and more recently, the expanded reimbursement for telehealth solutions. Each component of digital health was developed somewhat independently, but they have now converged and are interrelated, integral parts of the overall digital health ecosystem.

The patient and consumer engagement dimension of digital health has exploded over the last five years. This is due, in large part, to consumer and patient demand for greater engagement in the management of their healthcare, as well as the entry of disruptors, such as technology service providers, e-commerce companies, consumer products companies and entrepreneurs. At this point in the evolution of the digital health landscape, the patient and consumer engagement tool dimension pulls in all other key components and no digital health consumer engagement tool is complete without the full package.

Data Strategies and Collaborations as Key Innovation Ingredients

No digital health initiative can be developed, pursued or commercialized without data. But the world of data aggregation and analytics has also changed significantly and become immensely complex in recent years. Digital health innovation is no longer working exclusively within the friendly confines of the electronic health record and the carefully regulated, controlled and structured data it holds. Today, digital health innovation relies on massive amounts of data in a variety of types, in various forms, from a wide variety of sources, and through a wide variety of tools, including patient and consumer wearables and mobile devices.


Continue Reading

On January 7, 2020, the Director of the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Draft Memorandum (the Memorandum) to all federal “implementing agencies” regarding the development of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to reducing barriers to the development and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Implementing agencies are agencies that conduct foundational research, develop and deploy AI technologies, provide educational grants, and regulate and provide guidance for applications of AI technologies, as determined by the co-chairs of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Select Committee. To our knowledge, the NTSC has not yet determined which agencies are “implementing agencies” for purposes of the Memorandum.

Submission of Agency Plan to OMB

The “implementing agencies” have 180 days to submit to OMB their plans for addressing the Memorandum.

An agency’s plan must: (1) identify any statutory authorities specifically governing the agency’s regulation of AI applications as well as collections of AI-related information from regulated entities; and (2) report on the outcomes of stakeholder engagements that identify existing regulatory barriers to AI applications and high-priority AI applications that are within the agency’s regulatory authorities. OMB also requests but does not require agencies to list and describe any planned or considered regulatory actions on AI.

Principles for the Stewardship of AI Applications

The Memorandum outlines the following as principles and considerations that agencies should address in determining regulatory or non-regulatory approaches to AI:

  1. Public trust in AI. Regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to AI need to be reliable, robust and trustworthy.
  2. Public participation. The public should have the opportunity to take part in the rule-making process.
  3. Scientific integrity and information quality. The government should use scientific and technical information and processes when developing a stance on AI.
  4. Risk assessment and management.A risk assessment should be conducted before determining regulatory and non-regulatory approaches.
  5. Benefits and costs. Agencies need to consider the societal costs and benefits related to developing and using AI applications.
  6. Flexibility. Agency approaches to AI should be flexible and performance-based.
  7. Fairness and nondiscrimination. Fairness and nondiscrimination in outcomes needs to be considered in both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches.
  8. Disclosure and transparency. Agencies should be transparent. Transparency can serve to improve public trust in AI.
  9. Safety and security. Agencies should guarantee confidentiality, integrity and availability of data use by AI by ensuring that the proper controls are in place.
  10. Interagency coordination. Agencies need to work together to ensure consistency and predictability of AI-related policies.


Continue Reading

As the health industry evolves to meet consumer expectations for better quality, lower-cost and more convenient health care options, the demand for technology-driven innovation is accelerating as is the level of interest and investment among stakeholders or all sorts.

Health systems and other institutional providers are playing a more active investment role in the commercialization of biomedical, digital health, and other important health care discoveries in order to remain competitive, secure their positions as industry leaders and generate growth opportunities. This more active role also affords their internal innovators (e.g., physicians and scientists) to play a meaningful role in accelerating the commercialization of home-grown discoveries that may otherwise be left in “the valley of death” between government-funded basic research and later stage, industry-funded commercialization. Drug and medical device manufacturers, venture capital, private equity firms, large donors and other investors are injecting significant capital into fueling research, development and commercialization of health care technology innovation. On the one hand, health care systems and providers welcome such external co-investors who bring sophisticated expertise in product and market research, technology innovation, valuation and strategy capabilities, as well as access to networks of potential co-investors. For such external co-investors, on the other hand, joining forces with health care institutions affords much needed access to the expertise and thought leadership of clinicians, scientists and health technology innovation; a ready‑made proving ground and “anchor customer” for the product; and the halo effect of the health care provider around the co-investor’s clinical care and research reputation. The theory and the hope is that the combined capital and the different, but complementary, expertise, experience and perspectives of such co‑investors provides a formula for financially successful innovation that is transformative and not merely disruptive.
Continue Reading

Join McDermott next Wednesday for a live webinar on the unique considerations in developing and procuring AI solutions for digital health applications from the perspective of various stakeholders. We will discuss the legal issues and strategies surrounding:

  • Research and data mapping essential to the development and validation of AI technologies
  • Protecting and maintaining intellectual property

Fortune’s April 2018 cover story, “Tech’s Next Big Wave: Big Data Meets Biology,” conveys loudly and clearly that technological innovation is transforming the health care continuum—changing the way care is delivered, as well as how patients manage their ongoing health—and as patient demand for health innovation increases, more companies seem eager to hop on

Designed to provide business leaders and their key advisors with the knowledge and insight they need to grow and sustain successful digital health initiatives, we are pleased to present The Law of Digital Health, a new book edited and authored by McDermott’s team of distinguished digital health lawyers, and published by AHLA.

Visit www.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) establishes protections for the privacy and security of personal data (Personal Data) about individuals in the European Union (EU) single market countries, and potentially affects the clinical and other scientific research activities of academic medical centers and other research organizations in the United States.

This On the Subject includes

Throughout 2017, the health care and life sciences industries experienced a widespread proliferation of digital health innovation that presents challenges to traditional notions of health care delivery and payment as well as product research, development and commercialization for both long-standing and new stakeholders. At the same time, lawmakers and regulators made meaningful progress toward modernizing

On September 29, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) formally announced a December 12th workshop on informational injury—the injury a consumer suffers when information about them is misused. The workshop will address questions such as, how to characterize and measure such injury and what factors businesses and consumers should consider the benefits and risks of collecting, using and providing personal information so as to gain further perspective for how the FTC should apply its legal framework for privacy and security enforcement under 15 USC § 45 (Section 5). In her September 19th remarks to the Federal Communications Bar Association, Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen, the Acting Chairman of the FTC, metaphorically characterized the workshop’s purpose as providing the next brushstrokes on the unfinished enforcement landscape the FTC is painting on its legal framework canvas. The full list of specific questions to be addressed may be accessed here.

Background. The FTC views itself as the primary US enforcer of data privacy and security, a role it recently assumed. While the FTC’s enforcement against practices causing informational injury through administrative proceedings goes back as far as 2002, its ability to pursue corporate liability for data security and privacy practices under its Section 5 “unfair or deceptive trade practices” jurisdiction was only ratified in 2015 by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation. The FTC has actively invoked its enforcement authority but, in doing so, has been selective in determining which consumer informational injuries to pursue by questioning the strength of evidence connecting problematic practices with the injury, examining the magnitude of the injury and inquiring as to whether the injury is imminent or has been realized.
Continue Reading

The Final Rule published by the US Department of Health and Human Services on January 18, 2017, largely avoids major modifications to the Common Rule. However, it specifically addresses creation of biospecimen and data repositories and use of those repositories for secondary research. All stakeholders involved in federally funded research should be aware of the