As part of its efforts to provide patient-centered care and reduce costs for Medicare beneficiaries, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) have developed an Innovation Center model for ambulance care teams: Emergency Triage, Treat, and Transport (ET3). As part of this model, the agency has proposed two potential telehealth offerings: 1) An individual who calls 911 may be connected to a dispatch system that has incorporated a medical triage line to be screened for eligibility for medical triage services prior to ambulance initiation, and 2) telehealth assistance via audiovisual communications technologies with a qualified provider once the ambulance arrives.

Key participants in the ET3 model will be Medicare-enrolled ambulance service suppliers and hospital-owned ambulance providers. In addition, to advance regional alignment, local governments, their designees or other entities that operate or have authority over one or more 911 dispatches in geographic areas where ambulance suppliers and providers have been selected to participate in the ET3 model will have an opportunity to access cooperative agreement funding. As such, both state regulations and CMS regulations will apply to the use of telehealth offerings under ET3. This post explores early-stage questions of ET3 implementation and reimbursement, the intersection of state laws governing telehealth, and what potential participants and telehealth companies should know about the program.

How will CMS support the ET3 model implementation?

The key telehealth development for the ET3 program is that CMS expects to waive the telehealth geographic and originating site rules as necessary to implement the model, including waivers that will allow participants to facilitate telehealth at the scene of a 911 response. Additional information on these waivers is expected to accompany the ET3 Request for Applications (RFA), slated for release this summer. Overall, Medicare coverage requirements provide that the patient must be in an approved originating site at the time of the telehealth visit (e.g., hospital) and must be located within a rural area. CMS has waived these two requirements for other programs, such as the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (the SUPPORT Act) in October 2018, which eliminated the originating site restriction for substance use disorder treatment, because doing so is necessary for these programs to succeed.


Continue Reading

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