Tag:

Regulation

Ending Use of Seclusion Rooms in Illinois Schools

An article published on November 19, 2019 by ProPublica Illinois and the Chicago Tribune has alerted Illinois lawmakers, parents, and school personnel of the widespread use of seclusion rooms for isolated timeouts. The use of these rooms, which has now been halted by the Illinois State Board of Education (“ISBE”) and Governor J.B. Pritzker, has been legal in Illinois for over twenty years. The students who are most frequently placed in these rooms have an emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disability, and special education advocates are calling for an end to this practice. These rooms were introduced as a legally-sanctioned separation method to prevent students from harming themselves or others, but the investigative article found that students are often unlawfully placed in these rooms for minor behavioral infractions. The report also found that parents and school administrators did not have knowledge of the full scope of isolated time-out use for their students.

Facing Facial Recognition Technology

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.

The Empire State’s New Data Privacy Law

Data privacy and more specifically, user privacy, has become the focus for many in the past year. Some may say that the European Union began this “trend” with the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) with California soon following in their footsteps with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). However, seemingly more silently in New York, The Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security, or SHIELD Act has also been created in the interest of the protection of personal information. The SHIELD Act was enacted on July 25, 2019 as an amendment to the General Business Law and the State Technology Law to include breach notification requirements and stronger rules in place to enforce against businesses handling personal information. The SHIELD Act recently went into effect on March 21, 2020.

Action Against Individuals Regarding Fraudulent Genetic Testing

Michael Manganelli Associate Editor Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2021 In October 2019, The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a multi-agency and multi-state coordinated law enforcement action against 35 individuals involved in an alleged $2.1 billion genetic cancer testing scheme. The alleged scheme involved the payment of illegal kickbacks and bribes to medical professionals …
Read more

Promoting Interoperability Among the Electronic Health Record Systems

Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) proposed new rules to improve the interoperability of electronic health information (“EHI”) to fulfill its statutory requirement under the 21st Century Cures Act. These proposed rules were issued by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”) to address both technical and healthcare industry factors that create barriers to the interoperability of health information and limit a patient’s ability to access EHI. Epic, one of the largest programs for maintaining electronic health records (“EHR”), is attempting to halt the finalization of the interoperability rules before they take effect as they believe it posts privacy concerns. On March 9, 2020, HHS announced the joint final rules from CMS and ONC to spur innovation and to end information blocking.

CMS Modernizing the Physician Self-Referral and Anti-Kickback Regulations

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.

Stark and Anti-Kickback Statute Get Modern Updates to Account for Value-Based Arrangements

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.”

YouTube and Google Face Largest COPPA Fine in History

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.

FDA Issues Warnings Regarding E-Cigarettes

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019, the Trump Administration issued a statement regarding the recent outbreak of illnesses and deaths related to the use of electronic cigarettes (“e-cigarettes”). Soon after, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) quickly followed suit. The Trump Administration’s statement comes after reports of 380 cases of lung illness associated with the use of e-cigarettes in 36 states, in addition to 7 deaths. Both political parties have pressed for flavor bans, age restrictions, and other restrictions on the sale of vaping products. They have urged the FDA to move quickly and decisively to investigate and regulate e-cigarettes. E-cigarettes have been touted by manufacturers as a way to wean people from traditional cigarettes but have recently led to an “epidemic” of youth vaping of nicotine. E-cigarettes are popular among teens due to their availability, advertisements, e-liquid flavors, and the belief that they are safer than cigarettes. The long-term risks of vaping are currently unknown, but a growing numbers of studies show that e-cigarette vapor has severe health risks, including damaging lung tissue and blood vessels.

Are Tech Companies Doing Enough to Combat Social Media’s Harmful Effects?

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?