Group items tagged

Physician groups press FTC for exemption from Red Flag Rules With a May 1 deadline for compliance looming, the American Medical Association (AMA) has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to suspend the application of the Red Flag Rules to physicians and publish a new rule so that physicians have an opportunity to provide comments. In a March 9 letter to the FTC, AMA Executive Vice President Michael D. Maves wrote that the AMA "strongly believes that the FTC did not provide physicians with an opportunity to review and comment on this Rule." Controversy. Under the Red Flag Rules, which were finalized in October 2007 under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), financial institutions and creditors must develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs. FACTA provides a broad definition of "creditor" as "any entity that regularly extends, renews or continues credit." The FTC has interpreted this definition to include health care providers and physicians. The AMA and several other medical trade associations have taken the position that physicians were not intended to be subject to the Red Flag Rules, but the FTC has held firm in its interpretation, in spite of the objections. In a Feb. 4 letter to the AMA, the FTC reiterated its position that "the plain language and purpose of the Rule dictate that health care professionals are covered by the Rule when they regularly defer payment for goods or services." The FTC also has taken the position that application of the Red Flag Rules to physicians will reduce the incidence of medical identity theft and will not impose a heavy burden on health care professionals. Rulemaking process. In addition to its claim that health care providers should not be classified as creditors, the AMA also has argued that the physician community was not informed that it would be subject to the Red Flag Rules.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is planning to regulate online viral marketing that uses blogs and social networking sites. Marketers are spending billions worldwide to get the endorsements of key bloggers and groups on social networking sites. One tactic, used by Microsoft and others, is to send products to bloggers on 'long-term loans' on the understanding that they will comment about them on their sites. AdvertisementUnder the new regulations being proposed, such bloggers would be legally liable if they make untrue statements about the products or services. The companies too would face sanctions. "This impacts every industry and almost every single brand in our economy, and that trickles down into social media," Anthony DiResta, an attorney representing several advertising associations, told The Financial Times. This is the first revision of the rules on this kind of advertising by the FTC since 1980 and is needed, according to the organisation, because new forms of communication have opened up new fields to marketing. "The guides needed to be updated to address not only the changes in technology, but the consequences of new marketing practices," said Richard Cleland, assistant director for the FTC's division of advertising practices. " Word-of-mouth marketing is not exempt from the laws of truthful advertising." Advertisers are resisting the changes, however, which threaten a highly effective form of marketing new products and services. "Regulating these developing media too soon may have a chilling effect on blogs and other forms of viral marketing, as bloggers and other viral marketers will be discouraged from publishing content for fear of being held liable for any potentially misleading claim," Richard O'Brien, vice president of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, said in an advisory to the FTC.

Google never fails to surprise. It's the scope and scale of their ambitions that impresses me ranging as they do from relatively simple applications that are just way cool such as Sky Map, through their Chrome Web browser (which is now looking pretty stable), to the subject of this newsletter: Google Health. Google Health, which was launched as a beta (of course) in spring 2008, is a free repository for your personal health information. Using the service you can create online health profiles for yourself, family members or others you care for (these profiles can include health conditions, medications, allergies and lab results), you can import medical records from hospitals and pharmacies, share your health records with "your care network" (which may include family members, friends and doctors), and browse an online health services directory to find services that are integrated with Google Health. After you sign up you can import your medical records from Allscripts, Anvita Health, The Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, The Cleveland Clinic, CVS Caremark, Healthgrades, Longs Drugs, Medco Health Solutions, Quest Diagnostics, RxAmerica and Walgreens. What you'll wind up with if you update all of the sections is a pretty complete health profile, which means that privacy has to be a concern. Interestingly, because becoming a subscriber is voluntary it appears that the service is exempt from the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

On January 7, backers of California's Proposition 8 filed a federal lawsuit, asking that they be exempted from complying with California election laws that require disclosure of the names of people who give as much as $100 to a campaign for or against an initiative. The case is ProtectMarriage.com v Bowen, no. 2:09-cv-00058 (Sacramento). It was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England, who was appointed in 2002. The case depends on the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court precedent Brown v Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, which said that disclosure is not compelled if there is a reasonable possibility that campaign contributors, if identified, will be subject to harassment. Besides the Socialist Workers Party, other groups that have won freedom from disclosure include the Freedom Socialist Party, Socialist Action, and the Communist Party.

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule to beef up penalties for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accounting Act (HIPAA), as several Congressmen criticize the agency for leaving dangerous loopholes in the law. The new rules significantly increase penalty amounts that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can impose for HIPAA violations of patient privacy, according to a statement from HHS. The new rules reflect requirements enacted in the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) sections of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Before HITECH, maximum penalties were $100 for each violation or $25,000 for all identical violations of the same provision. A covered health care provider, health plan, or clearinghouse could be exempt from civil financial penalties if it demonstrated it did not know it violated the HIPAA rule. The HITECH act increases civil financial penalties by establishing tiered ranges of increasing minimum penalties, with a maximum $1.5 million for all violations of identical provisions. And a "covered entity" can plead ignorance as a protection only if it fixes the violation within 30 days of discovery."

"Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the attached opinion upholding the American Bar Association's challenge to the FTC's Identity Theft Red Flags Rule and enjoining the FTC from enforcing its Rule against lawyers. This memorandum opinion follows an October 29 oral argument and bench ruling. This ruling may have significance beyond the legal profession, and may limit the FTC's ability to enforce its Red Flags Rule against professionals, retailers, health care providers and other businesses that bill their clients and customers in a manner similar to lawyers. "