Top Three Changes in Delaware’s New Proposed Telemedicine Rules

26 March 2018 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Nathaniel M. Lacktman Jacqueline N. Acosta

The Delaware Board of Medicine has issued proposed regulations clarifying certain statutory provisions pertaining to telemedicine and telehealth. As we previously reported, Delaware’s Medical Practice Act imposes certain practice standards for what constitutes an appropriate patient diagnosis and treatment via telemedicine, including the allowable modalities and when an in-person examination is required. The new proposed regulations are intended to clarify the language in the statute to further define the allowable modalities and address telemedicine prescribing of opioids. If enacted, the regulations would add a new Rule 19.0 to Chapter 1700 of the Code of Delaware Regulations.

Telemedicine advocates and interested parties can make their voice heard by submitting comments on the proposed rules through April 2, 2018.

Current Delaware Telemedicine Law

Current Delaware law requires that physicians delivering care via telemedicine must, prior to a diagnosis and treatment, provide one of the following:

  • An appropriate examination in-person;
  • Have another Delaware-licensed practitioner at the originating site with the patient at the time of the diagnosis;
  • The diagnosis must be based using both audio and visual communication; or
  • The service meets standards of establishing a patient-physician relationship included as part of evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines in telemedicine developed by major medical specialty societies, such as those of radiology or pathology.

After a physician-patient relationship is properly established in accordance with the above, subsequent treatment of the same patient with the same physician need not satisfy the limitations above.

Three Ways the Proposed Rules Will Change Telemedicine Practice in Delaware

Providers and telemedicine companies should focus on these top three takeaways of the proposed rules, intended to clarify and add context to the statutory provisions set forth above:

  1. In-Person Examination. A remote, audio-only examination is not an “appropriate in-person examination” as that term is used in section 1769D(h)(1).
  2. Provider-Patient Relationships. For formation of the physician-patient relationship using audio and visual communications pursuant to section 1769D(h)(3), the audio and visual communications must be live, real-time communications.
  3. Acceptable Clinical Practice Guidelines. “Major medical specialty societies” as the term is used in section 1769D(h)(4) means specialty societies that are members of the Council of Medical Specialty Societies.

Prescribing Opioids via Telemedicine

Under the proposed rule, no opioid prescribing is permitted via telemedicine with the exception of addiction treatment programs offering medication assisted treatment that have received a Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health (DSAMH) waiver to use telemedicine through DSAMH’s licensure or renewal process as outlined in 16 DE Admin. Code 6001 (Substance Abuse Facility Licensing Standards Sec. 4.15). All other controlled substance prescribing utilizing telemedicine remains held to the same standards of care and requisite practice as when prescribing via in-person visits.

We will continue to monitor the proposed rules for when the final version is published, so please check back for updates.

For more information on telemedicine, telehealth, virtual care, and other health innovations, including the team, publications, and other materials, visit Foley’s Telemedicine and Digital Health Industry Team and read our 2017 Telemedicine and Digital Health Executive Survey.

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