Indiana Reverses Course on Telemedicine Prescribing and Controlled Substances Laws

Indiana has taken another step towards expanding the meaningful use of telemedicine in connection with clinical services and prescribing. HB 1337, signed by Governor Eric Holcomb and effective July 1, 2017, will allow providers to prescribe controlled substances via telemedicine without an in-person examination, albeit with some notable limitations and restrictions. The law reverses Indiana’s 2016 telehealth law that prevented providers from prescribing controlled substances via telehealth technologies.

Prescribing Drugs via Telemedicine

Under the new law an Indiana provider may prescribe non-controlled substances via telemedicine, without an in-person exam, if the following conditions are met:

The provider has satisfied the applicable standard of care in the treatment of the patient.
The issuance of the prescription by the provider is within the provider’s scope of practice and certification.
The prescription is not for a controlled substance.
The prescription is not for an abortion inducing drug.
The prescription is not for an ophthalmic device, including: (1) glasses; (2) contact lenses; or (3) low vision devices.

Prescribing Controlled Substances via Telemedicine

Under the new law an Indiana provider may prescribe controlled substances via telemedicine, without an in-person exam, if the prescriber satisfies the conditions outlined above and the following conditions are met:

The prescription is not for an opioid, unless the opioid is a partial antagonist that is used to treat or manage opioid dependence.
The prescriber maintains a valid controlled substance registration.
The prescriber meets the conditions set forth in the federal Ryan Haight Act.
The patient has been examined in-person by a licensed Indiana health care provider and the licensed health care provider has established a treatment plan to assist the prescriber in the diagnosis of the patient.
The prescriber has reviewed and approved that treatment plan and is prescribing for the patient pursuant to that treatment plan.
The prescriber complies with Indiana’s INSPECT prescription drug monitoring program.
The prescription for a controlled substance is prescribed and dispensed in accordance with Indiana Code 35-48-7.

While Indiana’s new law removes its prior blanket ban on telemedicine prescribing of controlled substances, it still requires the patient to undergo an in-person exam conducted by an Indiana health care provider, although not necessarily by the prescriber herself. This renders Indiana law more restrictive than many states, and even more restrictive than the federal Ryan Haight Act. The new law follows a growing trend among states to amend and eliminate prior statutory prohibitions on telemedicine prescribing of controlled substances. Michigan, for example, recently enacted a law to eliminate its previous ban, and now allows health professionals to prescribe controlled substances via telemedicine without an in-person examination.

This is encouraging news for providers using telemedicine in their practice, as controlled substances are an important and clinically significant component of certain specialties, including telepsychiatry, endocrinology, and hospitalists/emergency medicine.

Telemedicine prescribers should continue to be mindful of prescribing requirements under federal laws, as remote prescribing of controlled substances is governed by the Ryan Haight Act. Providers must understand and navigate many intersecting state and federal laws on telemedicine, medical practice, fraud and abuse, and controlled substances.

Disclaimer

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.

Partner

[email protected]

Tampa 813.225.4127

Related Insights

View All Posts

09 May 2024 Foley In Fashion

Chinese Footwear Imports Feeling the Heat in Mexico: Antidumping Investigation and Increased Duties

On April 26, 2024, the Mexican Government initiated an antidumping investigation on Chinese footwear imports.

07 May 2024 Foley Ignite

Secondary Buyouts on the Rise – Will it Last?

In a time when exit strategies have pivoted, and options might be more limited, it is no surprise that secondary buyouts have rebounded.

06 May 2024 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives

Update: Supreme Court Revises Title VII’s Decades-Old “Adverse Employment Action” Standard for Discriminatory Transfers

In January 2024, we reported on a significant case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, which was then pending before the United States Supreme Court. On April 17, 2024, the Court issued its decision in this case and, in doing so, modified the standard required to prove employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with respect to job transfers.