Delaware’s New Telemedicine Rules: Top Four Changes to Know

09 July 2018 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Nathaniel M. Lacktman Jacqueline N. Acosta

The Delaware Board of Medicine recently enacted new regulations pertaining to telemedicine and telehealth. As we previously reported, the new regulations are intended to clarify the language in Delaware’s Medical Practice Act, which 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 regulations add Rule 19.0 to Chapter 1700 of the Code of Delaware Regulations and became effective June 11, 2018.

Telemedicine advocates and interested parties should review the new regulations and ensure their practices adhere to these new provisions.

What is the Current Law on Telemedicine Practice in Delaware?

Current Delaware law requires a physician to establish a valid physician-patient relationship “either in-person or through telehealth.”  (“Physicians who utilize telemedicine shall, if such action would otherwise be required in the provision of the same service not delivered via telemedicine, ensure that a proper physician-patient relationship is established either in-person or through telehealth …”).  In connection with the establishment of a physician-patient relationship, the physician must adhere to the following:

  • Fully verifying and authenticating the location and, to the extent possible, identifying the requesting patient;
  • Disclosing and validating the provider’s [physician’s]identity and applicable credential or credentials;
  • Obtaining appropriate consents from requesting patients after disclosures regarding the delivery models and treatment methods or limitations, including informed consents regarding the use of telemedicine technologies as indicated in paragraph (b)(5) of the statute;
  • Establishing a diagnosis through the use of acceptable medical practices, such as patient history, mental status examination, physical examination (unless not warranted by the patient’s mental condition), and appropriate diagnostic and laboratory testing to establish diagnoses, as well as identify underlying conditions or contra-indications, or both, to treatment recommended or provided;
  • Discussing with the patient the diagnosis and the evidence for it, the risks and benefits of various treatment options;
  • Ensuring the availability of the distant site provider or coverage of the patient for appropriate follow-up care; and
  • Providing a written visit summary to the patient.

Moreover, subsection (h) of the law states that physicians using telemedicine technologies to provide medical care to patients located in Delaware must, prior to a diagnosis and treatment, fulfill at least 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.

How Do the New Regulations Change Telemedicine Practice in Delaware?

The Board’s proposed regulations stated that a “remote, audio-only examination” is not an “appropriate in-person examination” as that term is used in statutory section 1769D(h)(1).  After receiving public comment, the Board changed the statutory reference in the rule from section 1769D(h)(1) to section 1769D(b)(4).  The change was made after the Board became aware that, “despite the clear language of the statute, certain interest groups were opining that the requirement that a physician using telemedicine technologies to provide medical care to patients located in Delaware must first provide one of four options, including ‘an appropriate examination in-person,’ as that term is used in 24 Del.C. § 1769D(h)(1) did not actually require an in-person examination as an option.”  Namely, some groups were apparently arguing that a statutory requirement of an “in-person exam” can be accomplished via an audio-only exam.

The Board’s intent in doing so was to make clear that, under Delaware law and regulation, a remote, audio-only examination cannot be used to establish a valid physician-patient relationship. In drafting the regulatory language, the Board may have inadvertently injected some confusion because the term “in-person examination” referenced in the new regulation Section 19.1 does not actually exist in the cross-referenced statutory Section 1769D(b)(4). Moreover, Sections 1769D(b) and 1769D(h)(3) expressly permit the creation of a valid physician-patient relationship via telemedicine without an in-person exam (i.e., a diagnosis “based using both audio and visual communication”), subject to the standard of care.

In any event, providers and telemedicine companies should focus on these top four takeaways of the final rules:

  1. Audio-Only Modality Not Sufficient for First Exam. A remote, audio-only examination is not an “appropriate in-person examination” as that term is used in section 1769D(b)(4).  In other words, despite any technical qualms with the regulation’s language, the Board’s interpretation and intent appear to be that a remote, audio-only examination cannot be used to establish a valid physician-patient relationship.
  2. Provider-Patient Relationships. To create a valid 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. Namely, it cannot be audio-video recordings subsequently transmitted asynchronously to the distant site telemedicine physician.
  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.  This further defines the term to minimize confusion and impose restrictions on which organizations constitute a major medical specialty society for purpose the statute.
  4. Prescribing Opioids via Telemedicine. 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.

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

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ