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 rights in AI solutions
  • Technology development
  • Risk management and mitigation for various contractual arrangements, including contracts with customers, vendors and users

We will also focus on the trends in US law for AI solutions in the digital health space, and present actionable advice that will help you develop an effective strategy for developing and procuring AI solutions for digital health applications.

Developing and Procuring Digital Health AI Solutions: Advice for Developers, Purchasers and Vendors
Wednesday, June 13, 2018 | 11:00 am CT | 12:00 pm ET
Register Here

 

The digitization of health care and the proliferation of electronic medical records is happening rapidly, generating large quantities of data with potential to provide valuable insights into disease and wellness and help solve challenging public health problems.

There is tremendous enthusiasm over the possibilities of leveraging this data for secondary use–i.e., a use of data that is distinct from the purpose for which it was originally collected. However, such secondary use is often subject to intersecting legal and regulatory regimes–including HIPAA, the Common Rule, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its implementing regulations–that are not fully harmonized.  This lack of harmonization in requirements, coupled with the wide range of industry players involved–including regulators, academic medical centers, health systems, payers, technology companies, manufacturers and industry entities, research institutions, registries, and professional societies, to name a few– presents challenges that require careful planning and implementation. While regulators have recently taken significant steps to reconcile the differences among these laws and provide a path forward for harnessing the potential of big data, some specific requirements within these individual regulations continue to present challenges.

It is critical for academic medical centers and teaching hospitals, which stand at the intersection of government-funded research and industry-sponsored research, and are also paving the way in partnerships with non-traditional health care players—to understand the evolving legal framework and business and compliance imperatives behind the quest for digital health information.

During the AHLA Annual Meeting on Tuesday, June 26, McDermott partner Jiayan Chen will review trends and the value proposition relating to secondary use, with a particular focus on challenges presented by secondary use in the precision medicine and digital health context.  Along with co-presenter Leah Voigt, she will explore key regulatory and sub-regulatory developments relating to the secondary use of data under FDA regulations, the Common Rule, and HIPAA, and will also use case studies to explore, in a practical context, the challenges and ambiguities that remain when pursuing internal secondary use initiatives and external collaborations, including implementation and contracting tips, insights, and strategies.

Recycle, Recycle, Recycle: Key Considerations for Research, Medical Education, and Other Secondary Uses of Data
AHLA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL | June 26, 2018 | 9:45 – 10:45 am | Registration and program details.

McDermott’s Cocktail Reception during the AHLA Annual Meeting
The Art Institute of Chicago | June 26, 2018 | 6:00 – 8:00 pm
Following the programming on Tuesday, we invite you to join us for our annual cocktail reception at The Art Institute of Chicago. We look forward to an evening of networking, cocktails and private gallery tours with our colleagues, friends and fellow AHLA members. RSVP today!

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 the digital health bandwagon. The article provides a thoughtful, realistic (and somewhat sobering) perspective on digital health innovation’s successes and other results to date. It also quite effectively uses real world stories to convey the human dimension of digital health. One is the story of a mother who manually sampled and recorded her son’s glucose levels 20 times a day before an automated monitoring system connected to a mobile app allowed them both to live their lives without constant interruption by this critical care management function. Another describes use of an artificial intelligence “command center” to expedite access to life-saving surgery by a man with an aortic dissection. These real-world examples drive home the fact that digital health is already making a profound difference in our lives by removing barriers to care that are critical to saving lives and managing chronic diseases.

What the article does not touch on, however, are the myriad, complex legal challenges that must be addressed at the earliest stages of the planning process and the intensifying interest of government oversight and enforcement bodies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, interested in protecting the safety and privacy of patients and consumers. Just last month, we saw the SEC charge Theranos’ CEO Elizabeth Holmes with fraud for allegedly misleading investors about the company’s ability to detect health conditions from a small sample of blood. Earlier this year, another “unicorn” start-up, Outcome Health, settled with the federal government after The Wall Street Journal reported that they allegedly misled advertisers with manipulated information. The United States has also brought claims against the private equity company investor of a compounding pharmacy that allegedly paid illegal kickbacks to marketing firms to induce prescriptions written by telemedicine providers for costly compounded drugs reimbursed by TRICARE.

Opportunities and Challenges of the Patient Data “Gold Rush”

Eric Topol, MD, director at the Scripps Research Institute, told Fortune that “the quest to retrieve, analyze and leverage” data “has become the new gold rush. And a vanguard of tech titans—not to mention a bevy of hot startups—are on the hunt for it.” There is no doubt that harnessing and analyzing big data provide virtually limitless fuel for digital health innovation of the type patients and consumers are demanding and that tech companies are eager to develop and commercialize. While optimism about the quest for big data is certainly justified, it must be tempered by caution and careful consideration of complex, multi-dimensional legal and regulatory requirements that can shape the strategy for the exchange, use and exploitation of identifiable personal health data and other personal data.  As innovation continues to move in many directions and at light speed, it can be easy to get wrapped up in the excitement, but it’s worth taking a step back to take a look at the legal implications of doing so.

There are many current laws protecting patient data privacy, confidentiality and security that limit the type and extent of data-sharing that patients and digital health technology innovators demand. For instance, some state and federal privacy laws that protect particularly sensitive information (e.g., information concerning HIV/AIDS, mental health, substance abuse, and genetic testing and counseling) are more restrictive than the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and may require express written patient consent for uses and disclosures that HIPAA would permit without consent, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 also limits access to genetic information by group health plans, health insurers and issuers of Medigap policies.

Prioritizing Comprehensive Compliance Programs

While the Fortune article states that transformative technologies are putting consumers “in the driver’s seat,” there are still legal barriers that are currently keeping them in the passenger seat. To that end, and at the earliest stage of the research and development life cycle, companies must thoroughly think through key compliance considerations such as the nature and frequency of necessary patient and consumer consents, how they will substantiate claims they make in marketing and selling a product, what pre‑market regulatory approvals they need to obtain and how they will support the application for such approvals, to name just a few. A comprehensive corporate compliance program that incorporates the essential elements identified by the Office of the Inspector General can help companies identify, address and manage regulatory and compliance challenges before they become a serious problem that will threaten the success of the digital health initiative and expose them to government enforcement actions and third party lawsuits.

To learn more about the legal barriers that exist in the digital health space, as well as the need for and value of a proper and thorough compliance program, read “The Law of Digital Health,” written by members of the McDermott Will & Emery Digital Health Team. Be sure to also stay up to speed on all of the regulatory challenges and growth opportunities in health care technology today by bookmarking our “Of Digital Interest” blog.

Follow us on LinkedIn at McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

What if you didn’t have to take time out of your day to see a physician in person when you needed a prescription? What if a diagnosis could be delivered over video chat? What if your psychiatrist was available at the press of a button or swipe on your screen?

These options are fast becoming a reality, as telehealth (or telemedicine) continues to take hold in a health care system that is desperate for increased efficiency and higher quality outcomes. And while telehealth offers exciting new possibilities in terms of convenience and access for patients, it also poses new regulatory challenges for industry stakeholders still learning the new rules of the game in today’s digital health ecosystem.

The Chronic Care Act

One of the biggest drivers of change in the industry right now is the Chronic Care Act. Last month, as part of the House and Senate budget deal to fund the government through March 23, legislators included the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act of 2017, which will increase reimbursement for a lot of different telemedicine programs.

For example, if you went to a rural hospital and they didn’t have a stroke neurologist and you were having a stroke, you would have an ED doctor with no stroke specialty diagnosing you—not an ideal situation. With telemedicine, it’s now possible for rural doctors to consult with specialty doctors at renowned sites, which the government will fund thanks to the Chronic Care Act. Continue Reading Telehealth and the Changing Regulatory Landscape: Opportunities and Challenges in the Digital Health Ecosystem

The explosion in digital health solutions that connect consumers with licensed health care providers (e.g., nurses, nutritionists, physicians) and laypersons who have certain informal training (e.g., wellness guide, lifestyle coach, outreach partner) has the potential to blur the lines between what constitutes the practice of a licensed health care profession and what does not (usually because the service is intended to be merely informational or educational). Why does it matter which side of the line a particular service falls on? If a service is one that is delivered by a licensed health care professional, there are various state laws and regulations that may govern the activity, and different potential causes of action that may apply in the event a consumer/patient is injured in the process.

  1. If a digital health solution connects a consumer to an individual who is engaged in an activity that is normally performed by a licensed health care professional, state laws and regulations governing health care professionals likely apply.

As background, state professional boards regulate individuals who deliver health care services to the public (e.g., nursing, psychology, medicine, phlebotomy). What falls within the definition of a specific health care service can be very broad and varies state to state.  Continue Reading Walking the Fine Line between the Delivery of Health Care Services and Information/Educational Support

This past fall, after months of speculation, President Trump declared the opioid crisis sweeping the United States a national public health emergency. Upon the president’s declaration, Acting Health and Human Services Secretary Eric D. Hargan made a formal declaration under Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, making available an exception to the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (the Haight Act) that would allow providers to prescribe controlled substances using telemedicine without first conducting an in-person visit.  Currently, the Haight Act restricts the ability of a provider to prescribe controlled substances using telemedicine without first conducting an in-person examination, unless an exception applies. For a detailed discussion regarding the Haight Act and the restrictions on the use of telemedicine to prescribe controlled substances within the context of the treatment of opioid addiction and mental health generally, our latest article addresses the opioid crisis and access to mental and behavioral health providers.

The declaration of a public health emergency allows the US Drug Enforcement Agency (the DEA) to remove the restriction of prescribing controlled substances using telemedicine for the treatment of opioid addiction, but the DEA has not promulgated any rules or guidance on the subject. The lack of development has drawn the interest of Senators Claire McCaskill, Lisa Murkowski, and Dan Sullivan. The senators, in a January 30, 2018, letter to Robert Patterson, the acting administrator of the DEA, note that the restriction on the use of telemedicine from prescribing addiction treatment medications continues to have a harmful impact on rural Americans, citing specifically to Missouri, where 98 out of its 101 rural counties lack a licensed psychiatrist. In this letter, the senators call on Mr. Patterson to expedite the rulemaking process to create a special registration process to permit the prescription of opioid-based medication-assisted addiction therapies via telemedicine without first performing an in-person visit.

McDermott Will & Emery LLP will continue to monitor whether progress is made to develop this expedited rulemaking process and report updates on this blog.

The opioid epidemic is making the United States acutely aware of the horrors of substance abuse disorders and the limited means of treating the individuals suffering from addiction. Rural America is among the places hit hardest by opioid addiction while also having limited access to mental and behavioral health providers.

Telemedicine offers a viable solution to provider shortages, particularly with an eye toward mental health care professionals. Although telemedicine alone will not remedy the shortage of psychiatrists in the United States, the technology does possess the capability of greatly increasing access to them; however, a large driver of psychiatric care is provided through pharmaceutical treatments.

The ability for providers to prescribe pharmaceuticals, particularly controlled substances, to patients the provider has not seen in person is limited by the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (Haight Act). The relevance of the Haight Act, a law that went into effect almost nine years ago, has been revitalized, but the opioid epidemic and advances in psychiatric treatment are now demonstrating the law requires clarification through amendment to improve access to pharmaceutical treatments and, in turn, increase access to mental health care.

Continue reading

Reprinted with permission, copyright © 2018, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

On February 9, 2018 after a brief shutdown, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, a two-year budget agreement that includes funding for the operation of the federal government until March 23, 2018. The law includes significant health care policy changes impacting Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health agencies. In addition to raising federal spending caps enacted in the Budget Control Act of 2011, this legislation includes additional spending for health care priorities. Here we break down some of the changes affecting telehealth.

Expanded Access to Telehealth Stroke Services

The new law expands, beginning in 2019, the ability of patients presenting with stroke symptoms at hospitals or mobile stroke units to receive a timely telehealth consultation with a neurologist in order to determine the best course of treatment. The provision eliminates the current geographic restriction that limits originating sites to rural areas, meaning distant site providers delivering telestroke services could receive a professional fee for delivering the consultation to patients located anywhere in the United States, provided that the other Medicare telehealth coverage requirements are satisfied (e.g., type of provider, type of technology). Continue Reading Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 Includes Significant Changes in Medicare, Other Federal Health Programs

As digital health innovation continues to move at light speed, both new and incumbent stakeholders find themselves on a new frontier—one that challenges traditional health care delivery and payment frameworks, in addition to changing the landscape for product research, development and commercialization. Modernization of the existing legal framework has not kept pace with the rate of digital health innovation, leaving no shortage of obstacles, misalignment and ambiguity for those in the wake.

What did we learn in 2017 and what’s to come on the digital health frontier in the year ahead? From advances and investments in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to the increasingly complex conversion of health care innovation and policy, McDermott’s Digital Health Year in Review details the key developments that shaped digital health in 2017, along with planning considerations and predictions for the health care and life science industries in 2018.  Continue Reading On the Digital Health Frontier: Developments Driving Industry Change in 2018

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 the existing legal framework in a way that will both adequately protect patients and consumers and support and encourage continued innovation, but their efforts have not kept pace with what has become the light speed of innovation. As a result, some obstacles, misalignment and ambiguity remain.

We are pleased to bring you this review of key developments that shaped digital health in 2017, along with planning considerations and predictions for the digital health frontier in the year ahead.

Read the full Special Report.