In March 2019, Senator Brian Schatz and Senator Roy Blunt introduced a bill to Congress designed to provide oversight for facial recognition technology, known as the Commercial Facial Recognition Privacy Act. If passed, this law could change the way Americans deal with privacy.
On October 9, 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule to modernize and clarify the regulations that interpret the Medicare physician self-referral law (often called the “Stark Law”), which has not been significantly updated since it was enacted in 1989. As CMS tries to reconstruct the healthcare field, it is imperative for compliance programs to prepare for the changes in regulations to come. The following discussion provides a brief overview of the proposed changes but is not an exhaustive list of all rulemakings related to the physician self-referral law.
On October 17, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published two proposed rules in the Federal Register that could potentially transform key federal laws restricting health care arrangements. These rules address perceived or actual barriers to care coordination and value-based care under Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the Civil Monetary Penalty (“CMP”) law. The proposals are intended to “modernize and clarify” the regulations that implement and interpret these laws in order to drive innovation and more towards a more affordable health care delivery and payment system, while also maintaining barriers to prevent fraud and abuse. The proposed rules “will improve outcomes by moving away from the old modes of inpatient hospitalizations.”
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) the organic food market is experiencing double-digit growth in recent years. Despite the list of reasons that bump up the cost of organic foods, consumers are increasingly willing to pay a premium. Unfortunately for consumers, the weak, unclear, and sometimes non-existent labeling regulations imposed on organic products means that they may not be getting what they think they are paying for.
Earlier in 2019, a lawsuit was filed against University of Chicago Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, and Google. The suit claims that patient information was shared with google as part of a study aimed to advance the use of Artificial Intelligence, however, patient authorization was not obtained and the data used was not properly de-identified. In 2017, University of Chicago (UChicago) Medicine started sending patient data to Google as part of a project to look to see if historical health record data could be used to predict future medical events.
In 2008, the Illinois legislature introduced and passed the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which became the first law of its kind in the US. BIPA was passed to protect individuals against the unlawful collection and storing of biometric information. While many states have enacted similar laws, BIPA remains the most stringent among its contemporaries.
Today, we have entire generations of people who do not know life without the internet. Social medial plays a central role in the lives of these individuals. Originally created to serve a purely social function, social media platforms have changed. Many consumers even use sites like Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram as their primary source of news. In addition, social media is an integral marketing tool for many businesses. No matter its function, no one can deny the presence of social media in our everyday lives. The impact of social media is so profound that it is worth considering its negative effects. In particular, social media companies must be cognizant to their platform’s impact on adolescents. Many Americans, mainly parents, feel social media companies are not doing enough. But are they required to do more? Should the government become involved, similar to their involvement in the Facebook privacy controversy?
Data protection measures have been increasingly crossing news headlines ever since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect in 2018. However, data protection measures did not begin with the GDPR. In the United States, where there is a sectoral system in place, there have been regulations in place for years that monitor children’s online privacy (COPPA), health information (HIPAA), spam (CAN-SPAM), and even video rental history (VPPA). Despite these systems being implemented years ago, large companies still fail to properly comply with the requirements set forth. Recently, a settlement between YouTube and the FTC brought to light the importance of compliance with COPPA.
On August 29, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (“the EPA”) announced a proposed reconsideration amendment to an Obama Administration rule regulating the natural gas industry’s methane emissions. This proposal is in response to President Trump’s order for federal agencies to review their actions, purportedly to remove potential resource burdens. The EPA asserts that the changes will remove regulatory duplication and save the industry millions of dollars, but the savings may come at the expense of increasing the planet’s vulnerability.
At first, the story of John Kapoor’s rise to the top of the pharmaceutical industry sounds like the American dream played out in real life. The first to attend college in his family, Kapoor graduated from Bombay University in India with a degree in pharmacy. He came to the United States after securing a fellowship at the University of Buffalo, and earned his Ph.D. in 1972. His scientific and business savvy was evident from the start – in a matter of a decade, Kapoor took over a struggling pharmaceuticals business, turned it around, and netted a personal gain of $100mm. From there Kapoor became a serial entrepreneur, with INSYS Therapeutics marking the pinnacle of his success. The company made him a billionaire, but later made him the target of a criminal racketeering investigation and the face of one of America’s darkest problems.