Florida Board of Medicine Issues Telemedicine Regulations

15 May 2014 Health Care Law Today Blog

The Florida Board of Medicine enacted new regulations governing the Standards for Telemedicine Practice. The regulations are identical for allopaths (64B8-9.0141) and osteopaths (64B15-14.0081). The new regulations went into effect March 12, 2014 and offer some additional guidance on telemedicine practice in Florida, although they are not as comprehensive as some providers may have wished. 

Highlights of the regulations are as follows:

  • A valid physician-patient relationship may be established through telemedicine.  
  • The regulations allow, and expressly do not prohibit, consultations between physicians, as well as the transmission and review of digital images, pathology specimens, test results, or other medical data by physicians or other qualified providers related to the care of Florida patients.
  • The regulations expressly prohibit controlled substances from being prescribed through telemedicine, but make no statement with regard to prescriptions for non-controlled substances.
  • The regulations explicitly recognize that telemedicine may be performed not only by a licensed Florida physician, but also by a physician assistant. 
  • The regulations define the medium for telemedicine as “where patient care, treatment, or services are provided through the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications.” Under the regulations, telemedicine does not include the provision of health care services only through an audio only telephone, email messages, text messages, facsimile transmission, U.S. Mail or other parcel service, or any combination thereof. This definition is largely consistent with Model Policy for the Appropriate Use of Telemedicine Technologies in the Practice of Medicine published by the Federation of State Medical Boards on April 26, 2014.
  • The regulations defer to the existing standard of care expectations, and do not alter existing statutory requirements on the practice of medicine and medical malpractice.
  • The regulations do not apply to emergency medical services or patients with emergency medical conditions.

After the regulations were published, providers were concerned the rule precluded physicians from ordering controlled substances through the use of telemedicine for their hospitalized patients. On its face, the regulation precludes the prescribing of controlled substances through the use of telemedicine, but does not bar the use of telemedicine to order controlled substances to hospitalized patients. Accordingly, the Board of Osteopathic Medicine issued a follow-up emergency rule amending Rule 64B15-14.0081 and clarifying that the ordering of controlled substances for hospitalized patients through the use of telemedicine is not prohibited by Rule 64B15-14.0081(4). The emergency rule clarifying the regulation went into effect May 5, 2014. Unfortunately, there was no corresponding clarification issued on the allopathic physician telemedicine regulation, which creates potential confusion between the expectations for practice standards of osteopaths vs. allopaths.

The Board’s telemedicine regulations were issued during the 2014 Florida Legislative session, when a landmark telemedicine bill was in development. Although many anticipated the bill would pass, it failed to secure the necessary votes during the final day of session. The Legislature may pick up the bill again next year, but until then, the Board regulations represent the most current guidance for Florida telemedicine practitioners.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT