We all know that telehealth is going mainstream. The numbers speak for themselves. A leading research firm predicts that 2.8 million patients worldwide used home-based remote monitoring devices in 2012—expected to increase to 9.4 million connections globally by 2017. Another firm projects that the number of patients using telehealth services in the United States will grow to 1.3 million in 2017, up from 227,000 in 2012. Even less rosy projections predict growth to 2 million patients worldwide by 2017. The news is even better in subspecialties like telepsychiatry that are ...
In the healthcare industry we often associate information privacy and security enforcement with HIPAA and state privacy laws. However, a lesser known but in some cases just as significant regulator of information privacy is the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). This is especially true with regard to mobile health applications, which depending on how they function and collect personal information, may not be regulated by HIPAA. Regardless of whether or not you have to comply with HIPAA, if you run applications or software that can access personal information, then the FTC’s ...
By: James P. Flynn
The New Jersey Legislature was overwhelmingly in favor of a measure that would have barred employers from obtaining social media IDs and other social media related information from employees and applicants. Click here for A2878 as passed. But Governor Chris Christie vetoed A-2878 because it would frustrate a business’s ability “to safeguard its business assets and proprietary information” and potentially conflict with regulatory requirements on businesses in regulated industries such as finance and healthcare. Click here for the Governor's Veto ...
While telehealth technology advances, unresolved legal issues continue to deter wider adoption of telehealth as a means of delivering health care services. One issue that telehealth providers must consider is the standard of care that applies in telehealth encounters. Generally, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice suit must prove, among other things, that the provider breached the standard of care. Therefore, knowing what standard of care applies is critical for any telehealth provider that wishes to insulate itself from potential malpractice liability.
In traditional ...
By Gretchen Harders and Michelle Capezza
On May 8, 2013, the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued Technical Release 2013-02 (the “Release”) providing important guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Affordable Care Act”) with regard to the requirement that employers provide notices to their employees of the existence of the Health Insurance Marketplace, generally referred to previously as the Exchange. These ...
By Gretchen Harders and Michelle Capezza
On May 8, 2013, the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued Technical Release 2013-02 (the “Release”) providing important guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Affordable Care Act”) with regard to the requirement that employers provide notices to their employees of the existence of the Health Insurance Marketplace, generally referred to previously as the Exchange. These ...
By Adam C. Abrahms and Steven M. Swirsky
In another major defeat for President Obama’s appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit found that the Board lacked the authority to issue a 2011 rule which would have required all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”), including those whose employees are not unionized, to post a workplace notice to employees. The putative Notice, called a “Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act,” is intended to ostensibly ...
Employers with fifty or more full-time employees (including full-time equivalent employees) are subject to the employer mandate penalties under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended (the “ACA”) which become effective in 2014. These penalties can be triggered if such employers fail to offer a health plan to their full-time employees and their dependents and have at least one full time employee who receives a premium tax credit or cost share reduction in connection with their enrollment in a qualified health plan through an ...
Excerpt from EBG April 2013 Immigration Alert:
On March 8, 2013, the USCIS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it had recently revised the Employment Eligibility Verification form (“Form I-9”), and that employers must start using this new form by May 7, 2013. Employers using prior versions of the Form I-9 on or after May 8, 2013, will violate the law and be subject to worksite enforcement fines and other penalties.
Click here to read the full Immigration Alert.
by: Steven M. Swirsky and D. Martin Stanberry
An NLRB Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) has found that two computer usage policies of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (“UPMC”) violated the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) because they had an unreasonable tendency to chill employee activities, including union organizing and employee discussions about terms and conditions of employment, protected by Section 7 of the Act.
The policies at issue prohibited employees from using the employer’s email and other electronic messaging systems “in a way that ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Straight From the Source: AHLA Annual Meeting Highlights Fraud and Abuse Enforcement Efforts in 2026 and Beyond
- At the Half: No Free Kicks in FDA’s 2026 Enforcement
- CMS Codifies Drug Price Negotiation Program—With Modifications for 2029
- Federal Embryo Adoption Program Raises Potential Legal Questions for Reproductive Health
- Vermont’s H. 583 Restricts Private Equity and Hedge Funds with Ownership and Controlling Interests from Interfering with Clinical Judgment of Health Care Providers