Georgia Composite Medical Board Issues New Telemedicine Rules

20 August 2014 Health Care Law Today Blog

The Georgia Composite Medical Board enacted a new regulation governing the standards for telemedicine practice. The regulation, titled Practice Through Electronic or Other Such Means, is found under Georgia Comp. Rules and Regs. rule 360-3-.07 and is intended to establish the minimum standards of practice while providing treatment and/or consultation recommendations through the use of telemedicine.

Following two years of evaluation and discussions by the Board, the new rule went into effect May 3, 2014. Absent some minor changes, the rule is similar to the version originally contemplated by the Board. The rule offers some additional guidance on telemedicine practice in Georgia, although it does impose certain restrictions on telemedicine and telehealth in the State. Most notably, this is reflected in the rule establishing a default requirement of an in-person examination prior to a telemedicine encounter.

Highlights of the rule are as follows:

  • Georgia License Required. All treatments and consultations via telemedicine must be done by Georgia-licensed providers, which includes not only physicians, but also physician assistants (PAs) and advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs).
  • In-Person Examination. Prior to the telemedicine encounter, the telemedicine provider must have personally conducted an in-person examination of the patient unless one of three exceptions apply:
    1. The telemedicine provider is able to examine the patient using technology and peripherals that are equal or superior to an in-person examination done by a provider within that provider’s standard of care.; or
    2. The telemedicine provider is providing care (conducting the telemedicine encounter) at the request of a physician, PA or APRN licensed in Georgia who has personally seen and examined the patient; or
    3. The telemedicine provider is providing care (conducting the telemedicine encounter) at the request of a Public Health Nurse, a Public School Nurse, the Department of Family and Children’s Services, law enforcement, community mental health center or through an established child advocacy center for the protection or a minor, and the provider is able to examine the patient using technology and peripherals that are equal or superior to an examination done personally by a provider within that provider’s standard of care.
    • Records. The telemedicine provider must have the patient’s medical history available at the time of the consult. The provider must maintain patient records of the encounter and must document the evaluation and treatment. If there is a referring practitioner, the telemedicine provider must send a copy of this record to the referring practitioner.
    • Operational. The patient must receive the telemedicine provider’s credentials and emergency contact information. The patient must also receive clear instructions on follow-up in the event the patient needs emergency care related to the telemedicine treatment.
    • Annual In-Person Follow-Up Exam. The telemedicine provider must make “diligent efforts” to have the patient seen and examined in-person by a Georgia-licensed physician, PA or APRN at least once a year.
    • Standard of Care. The regulations defer to the existing standard of care expectations, and do not alter existing requirements on the practice of medicine or medical malpractice.

    Georgia is among the states taking the lead on telemedicine commercial insurance reimbursement, having enacted the Georgia Telemedicine Act in 2005, mandating commercial coverage of telemedicine services. The new Medical Board rule offers additional guidance on telemedicine practice standards in Georgia.

    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

    CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
    20 November 2019
    Health Care Law Today
    The Purpose of a Corporation
    November 2019
    Legal News: Business Law
    Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
    19 November 2019
    Dashboard Insights
    Data Processing Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit Finds Claims Eligible in KPN v. Gemalto
    19 November 2019
    IP Litigation Current
    PATH Summit 2019
    18-20 December 2019
    Arlington, VA
    Madison CLE Days
    18-19 December 2019
    Madison, WI
    MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
    13-15 December 2019
    Las Vegas, NV
    HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
    12 December 2019
    Boston, MA