Source: http://healthlawreporter.bbablogs.org/category/in-this-issue/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:49:50+00:00

Document:
Jerry, Colin and I are proud to bring you the Winter 2015 edition of the Health Law Reporter. The good news is that we can promise that this edition has nothing to do with the weather and will not comment upon the record snow or cold temperatures experienced by Boston this winter. Instead, this edition brings with it news of epic changes to the Massachusetts healthcare landscape as we move into spring. In this issue, George Leehan, Sarah Sossong and Nathaniel Lacktman cover the principal legal and regulatory issues associated with the current state of telemedicine in Massachusetts including licensure, scope of practice, credentialing and reimbursement issues. Jesse Alderman tackles the intricacies of physician certification of the medical use of marijuana for patients including the parameters associated with qualifying patients as having a “debilitating medical condition,” the requirements surrounding a physician’s certification that the benefits of medical marijuana outweigh the risks to the patient, and the criteria required to register as a certifying physicians with DPH. This article follows up on the Summer 2014 Reporter article discussing the legal issues confronted by Registered Marijuana Dispensary (RMD). Finally, Daniel LaPenta discusses the exposure of skilled nursing facilities to increased government enforcement due to the increase of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries from the “baby boom” generation.
We are also excited that Anna Gurevich from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center was able to spend some time with Tom O’Brien, the General Counsel of the Department of Public Health and the former Chief of the Health Care Division at the Office of the Attorney General. In her interview, Anna garnered insights from Tom regarding his role at DPH as well as his dedication to public service and the enforcement of the rule of law. This edition also includes summaries on two recent health law cases in Massachusetts—Barry Genereux, et. al. v. Raytheon Co. addresses employer responsibility for medical monitoring for employees exposed to dangerous substances and Robert Roe, et. al. v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center discusses whether a hospital owes a duty of care to allegedly abused future patients of a former physician employee.
On a final note, we wanted to extend our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to our former co-editor, David Sontag from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for all of his hard work and dedication to the Reporter over the years.
Genereux et al. v. Raytheon Co.
As we approach the one year anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing, we reflect not only on the tragic scene that unfolded that day but also on the tremendous displays of community and the human spirit that followed thereafter. Each person affected has their own story to tell; however, Jamie Katz, General Counsel and a Senior Vice President at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, provides a unique perspective in his article on the Medical Center’s response to the bombings as well as the challenges it was confronted with when both suspects, Tamarlan and Dzohkar Tsarnaev, were brought to the Medical Center for treatment.
We are also excited that Julie Myers from the Attorney General’s office was able to spend some time with Lois Johnson, General Counsel of the Health Policy Commission. In her interview, Julie garnered insights from Lois about the mission of the HPC as well as ways in which the Commonwealth continues to be on the cutting edge of health care policy in the United States.
In addition, this edition of the Reporter includes an assessment of the public health issues underlying the tanning salon industry and the dangers associated with an apparent lack of enforcement related to the false and deceptive advertisements issued by certain members of the industry. Robert Ciccia suggests that a litigation strategy similar to that employed in the cigarette industry for its “light” cigarettes may be a viable solution to the issue.
This edition includes summaries on four recent health law cases in Massachusetts addressing topics ranging from commitment under G.L. c. 123, § 7 to the awarding of treble damages under the Massachusetts Wage Act.
On a final note, we wanted to recognize the hard work of all of our authors and peer reviewers as well as the members of the Communication Committee who work to ensure that this publication remains the preeminent snapshot of current developments in health law and policy in Massachusetts!
In the Matter of C.B.
Alla Feygina v. Hallmark Health System, Inc., et al.
In light of national and local focus on electronic health record-related and medical privacy issues, BBA Health Law Section Members and readers of the Health Law Reporter have increasingly expressed interest in articles relevant to the world of eHealth and electronic medical information. Through their contributions to this issue, a number of our authors address these topics head on. In particular, this issue features articles discussing the Massachusetts Health Information Exchange, recent privacy-related enforcement actions, and a policymaker profile of the Director of Massachusetts’ eHealth Institute.
Not to be overshadowed, this issue also includes insightful articles addressing the significant growth of the Medical-Legal Partnership model (which involves collaboration between health care and legal aid providers) and a recent CMS demonstration project addressing individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage. These articles, combined with four case briefs addressing recent decisions, further our efforts to keep our readers up-to-date as to current trends and issues in our industry.
We thank each of our authors for their significant efforts and contributions!
By: John D. Halamka MD, CIO Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Manu Tandon, CIO EOHHS; Micky Tripathi, CEO, Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative; and Laurance Stuntz, CEO, Massachusetts eHealth Institute.
By: Margaretta Homsey Kroeger, Esq.
Laurance Stuntz, Director of the Massachusetts eHealth Institute.
Paula Tartarini vs. Department of Mental Retardation (82 Mass. App. Ct. 217) (discussing the mental capability standards for determining eligibility for DMR services).
The 2011-2012 United States Supreme Court term was one of the most momentous in history in terms of its impact on the healthcare industry. In addition to the Court’s famous (or infamous, depending in your point of view) decision on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the Court also weighed in with important decisions in the field of intellectual property, HIV privacy, the power of states to overturn the Federal Arbitration Act in the nursing home context, and the Court’s decision to remand the much-anticipated Douglas Medicaid funding case to a lower court, among others. A brief summarizing each of these cases is included in this issue.
Further, we asked leaders throughout the Boston healthcare community to comment on the impact of the Supreme Court’s decisions this term. We gave all of the authors an open mandate to weigh in on any aspect of the Supreme Court’s decisions, individually or collectively, that were meaningful to them. It is a comment on the breadth and complexity of these cases that the authors provided us with such diversity in their thoughts and opinions on the issues presented. We thank them for their contributions to the Health Law Reporter, and hope that you will enjoy reading their perspectives as much as we did.
Whether a state employer has sovereign immunity against a FMLA claim.
Douglas v. Independent Living Centers of Southern California, Inc.
Whether a Medicaid provider or beneficiary has a right to sue a state Medicaid agency if that state enacts a law or regulation that is contrary to the “quality and access” provision of the federal Medicaid Act.
Whether a plaintiff can recover only proven pecuniary damages, or other special/consequential damages, for a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 related to disclosure of HIV status.
Whether state supreme court’s determination that enforcement of an arbitration clause is against public policy is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Specifically, whether the FAA preempts West Virginia Supreme Court’s determination that an arbitration provision in a contract for nursing home services is unenforceable in the context of a personal injury claim, where the claim post-dates the agreement.
Whether a test that determines how a drug is metabolized is patentable, or instead is a “law of nature” that cannot be patented.
In a landmark ruling this summer, the Supreme Court upheld key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), while at the same time stressing the limits of federal regulatory authority.
We are pleased to present to you the Spring 2012 Edition of the Health Law Section’s Health Law Reporter. Our Health Law Report­er provides BBA members with cutting-edge and unique perspectives on the fast-changing field of health law.
For the past several years, Massachusetts has played a leading role in national health reform, with our models for mandated indi­vidual insurance coverage, health insurance exchanges and other concepts winning ac­ceptance and adoption at the national level. This edition of the Health Law Reporter ad­dresses several of these important aspects of health reform.
We are pleased and honored to begin this is­sue with a contribution from Governor Deval Patrick. This is followed by discussion of the extension of health insurance to legal immi­grants in Massachusetts, and a discussion of some of the unique impacts of national health reform on Massachusetts. We also profile one of the key individuals involved in implement­ing health reform in our state, Aron Boros, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy.
Obtaining an OIG Advisory Opinion: The General Counsel’s Perspective – Interview of Daniel Orenstein, General Counsel, athenahealth, Inc.
Health Law Brief: U.S. ex. rel. Christopher Drennen v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
We also have a contribution discussing the pending lawsuits in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the federal Affordable Care Act. This is just a preview of what is to come, as we will address the outcome of those Su­preme Court lawsuits in our next edition of the Health Law Reporter, so stay tuned! One of the best ways to keep abreast of these is­sues is through the BBA Health Law Section. We invite the involvement of anyone who wishes to join our section, and welcome the addition of your time, talents and ideas. The Health Law Section has several committees to choose from (CLE, Communications, Mem­bership, Legislative Update, Social Action); or you can volunteer as a participant at one of our CLE programs or Brown Bag lunches. Your ideas for new programs, events or new approaches to making our Section better are welcome.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v.