Key Takeaways from Oklahoma’s New Telemedicine Law

05 July 2017 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Nathaniel M. Lacktman Thomas B. Ferrante

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin recently signed into law SB 726, establishing new telemedicine practice standards, including explicitly allowing doctors to create valid physician-patient relationships via telemedicine without an in-person exam. The new law is effective November 1, 2017.

The bill creates a new section in the Oklahoma Code (Sections 478 and 478.1 of Title 59). A summary of the key provisions follows:

  • Telemedicine” is defined as the practice of health care delivery, diagnosis, consultation, evaluation and treatment, transfer of medical data or exchange of medical education information by means of a two-way, real-time interactive communication, not to exclude store and forward technologies, between a patient and a physician with access to and reviewing the patient’s relevant clinical information prior to the telemedicine visit. Note the latter portion of the definition requires the physician to have access to and review the patient’s relevant clinical information prior to the telemedicine visit.
  • “Store and forward technologies” is defined as the transmission of a patient’s medical information from an originating site to the physician or practitioner at the distant site; provided photographs visualized by a telecommunications system shall be specific to the patient’s medical condition and adequate for furnishing or confirming a diagnosis or treatment plan.
  • Audio-Only or Text-Based Communications. The law excludes from the definition of telemedicine consultations provided by telephone audio-only communication, electronic mail, text message, instant messaging conversation, website questionnaire, nonsecure video conference, or facsimile machine.
  • Physician-Patient Relationship. A valid physician-patient relationship may be established via telemedicine if the physician holds an Oklahoma medical license, confirms the patient’s identity and physical location, and provides the physician’s identity and professional credentials to the patient. A physician-patient relationship is not to be created solely based on the receipt of patient health information by a physician. Rather, the physician must affirmatively undertake to diagnose and treat the patient, or participate in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient.
  • Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The telemedicine and store and forward technology encounters must comply with HIPAA and ensure that all patient communications and records are secure and confidential.
  • Telemedicine Prescribing. A physician-patient relationship cannot be established via telemedicine or store and forward technologies for the purpose of prescribing opiates, synthetic opiates, semisynthetic opiates, benzodiazepine or carisprodol, but may be used to prescribe opioid antagonists or partial agonists. The law does not prohibit the use of telemedicine for prescribing other medications, but Oklahoma law does consider it unprofessional conduct to prescribe or administer a drug or treatment without sufficient examination and the establishment of a valid physician-patient relationship.

Oklahoma already has medical board regulations (Okla. Admin. Code r. 435:10-7-13) and a position statement on the practice of telemedicine, and the new law may potentially require the Oklahoma Board of Medicine to rewrite some of its existing guidance to the extent it conflicts with the controlling provisions of the new statute. The new law can serve to streamline and simplify existing Oklahoma rules, and give a greater degree of confidence for accepted telemedicine practices. Industry insiders may recall the 2013 Trow decision, in which a physician was sanctioned by the Oklahoma Medical Board for inappropriate telemedicine prescribing practices, including controlled substances.

Copyright 2017, American Health Lawyers Association, Washington, DC. Reprint permission granted.

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

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.