On June 26, Michael C. Barnes, JD gave a webinar presentation alongside Wade Delk of the American Society for Pain Management Nursing (ASPMN). The presentation, entitled “2019 Pain Care Legislation and Public Policy,” was hosted by the Providers Clinical Support System (PCSS). The webinar analyzed how recent federal and state legislative and regulatory actions and proposals could affect the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) and pain management practices. Mr. Barnes discussed recent efforts by the DOJ to crack down on opioid prescribers and the impact of these actions on practitioners. He also highlighted the consequences of state efforts to decrease opioid prescribing on people with pain, particularly stemming from the 2016 Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline. Mr. Barnes discussed recent federal legislation and rules affecting patients with OUD, including the SUPPORT Act (2018) and the MAT Act (2019), as well as trends in telemedicine, warm handoffs, and court cases pertaining to these patients. To view the full presentation, click here.
Kulkarni Presents on MAT in Criminal Justice Settings at Rx Summit
At this week’s Rx Drug Abuse & Heroin Summit in Atlanta, Shruti Kulkarni, JD presented with Tulane School of Medicine’s Dr. John W. Thompson, and the Chief Operating Officer of NaphCare, Bradford McClane. Their presentation, “Opioid Use Disorder Interventions and Treatment in Jails: Policy and Practice,” examined the benefits, challenges, and policy issues related to delivering medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder in criminal justice settings. Topics included an analysis of case studies on MAT in jails in New Jersey and Washington, as well as the court opinions from Estelle v. Gamble and Pesce v. Coppinger. The presenters also discussed legal and policy developments, including relevant provisions of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, and concluded by providing recommendations for advocating for the implementation of MAT in criminal justice settings.
Barnes Presents on Warm Handoffs at Rx Summit
Today, Michael C. Barnes, JD presented and moderated a session at the Rx Drug Abuse & Heroin Summit in Atlanta. The session, entitled “Warm Handoffs: Overcoming Barriers to Implementation,” examined the need for emergency department warm handoff programs. Under these programs, patients who experience a nonfatal overdose are screened for problematic substance use and receive treatment if appropriate. Mr. Barnes spoke alongside Karen Perry, Founder and Executive Director of NOPE Task Force, and Dr. Ross Sullivan, Director of Emergency Opioid Bridge Clinic and Medical Toxicology, Emergency Medicine at Upstate University Hospital. Ms. Perry discussed the story of her son and the resulting warm handoff law passed in Florida in 2017. Dr. Sullivan highlighted the efforts of the Upstate Opioid Bridge Clinic to respond to opioid overdose and ensure patients receive treatment. Topics also included barriers to treatment, patient privacy considerations under HIPAA and 42 CFR Part 2, initiating treatment with buprenorphine in the emergency department, mobile medical services, and relevant provisions of the SUPPORT for Patient and Communities Act. The speakers concluded by offering recommendations for warm handoff programming and advocacy.
Barnes, Kulkarni Address Women Legislators
This week, Michael C. Barnes, JD and Shruti Kulkarni, JD presented at the National Foundation for Women Legislators Annual Conference. They were joined by Dr. Shannon Ginnan, physician and Medical Director of the nonprofit Aimed Alliance. Their presentation, “Doctors in Distress: Avoiding Health Care Provider Shortages,” examined provider shortages, with a specific focus on contributing factors to and recommendations for addressing these shortages. Topics included interference with doctors’ professional judgment by insurers, coverage practices such as step therapy and prior authorization and their associated administrative burdens, physician burnout, and the patient-physician relationship. The presentation concluded with recommendations for providers, insurers, state legislators, and state medical boards on addressing the issue of provider shortages.
FTC Settles Complaint Against Venmo
On February 27, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with Paypal, Inc. relating to the privacy and security practices of Venmo, Paypal’s peer-to-peer payment service. The FTC alleged that Venmo failed to adequately disclose to its users that transfers of funds from their Venmo balances to external bank accounts were subject to review, and such funds could be frozen or removed in cases of suspected fraud. The FTC’s complaint also charges that Venmo misled users about the scope of Venmo’s “bank grade security systems,” as well as the extent to which users could control the visibility of their transactions.
Venmo allows individuals to send and receive payments to other Venmo users by using either a mobile app or Venmo’s website. To access these features, users are required to create an account, which they may link to an external bank or payment card account. When a user receives money, the funds they receive are credited to their “Venmo balance.” If a user attempts to make a payment and has insufficient funds in their Venmo balance to cover the payment, the user will be prompted to cover the difference by depositing funds through an external source. Users receive notifications via text message, email, or push notifications when they receive a payment through the service.
According to the FTC’s complaint, Venmo has previously represented that users may transfer funds from their Venmo balance to their bank overnight. However, in a number of instances, users were unable to access funds due to a delay in reviewing the underlying transactions for fraud or other issues. In addition to these problems, the FTC identified an ambiguity in Venmo’s privacy settings. By default, all Venmo transactions are made public, and users may view recent public transactions on the Venmo app. A setting within the Venmo app allows users to change the “default audience” for their transactions to either public (the default setting), friends of the user, or only the transaction participants. However, adjusting this setting affects only transactions that are initiated by the user; if the user receives a payment from a user with different privacy settings, the sender’s settings will determine how the transaction is shared. If the user wishes to restrict the audience of all transactions in which they are involved and not just those they initiate, the user must locate a second setting, labeled “Transaction Sharing,” that appears in a different section of the Venmo settings than the other privacy settings.
In addition to these concerns, the FTC alleged that Venmo was in violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act for failing to provide proper privacy notices or appropriately safeguard customer information. The FTC has authority to enforce these rules against certain financial institutions.
The FTC’s enforcement action is a reminder that the agency remains active in policing privacy practices, but it also serves as a warning that the FTC’s enforcement authority extends into sectors typically regulated by other federal agencies. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act applies broadly to “financial institutions,” and the FTC has authority to enforce the portions of the act governing privacy of customer information against a wide range of financial institutions, including those that may ordinarily be subject to the investigatory power of the SEC, CFTC, or CFPB. This can come as quite a surprise to companies that assume they only have one federal agency to worry about.
The FTC’s role in shaping the scope of data protection regulation in the United States is becoming more and more evident every day. Businesses in all sectors should take notice—even those that may believe they are outside the FTC’s jurisdiction.