Authority of Health Care Providers To Practice Telehealth, 45756-45762 [2017-20951]
Download as PDF
45756
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
improve that analysis. We thus follow
the same basic approach here.
The full analysis of economic impacts
is available in the docket for this
proposed rule (Ref. 1) and at https://
www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Reports
ManualsForms/Reports/Economic
Analyses.
V. Analysis of Environmental Impact
We have determined under 21 CFR
25.30(k) that this action is of a type that
does not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule contains no
collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management
and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
VII. Federalism
We have analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles set
forth in Executive Order 13132. Section
4(a) of the Executive Order requires
Agencies to ‘‘construe * * * a Federal
statute to preempt State law only where
the statute contains an express
preemption provision or there is some
other clear evidence that the Congress
intended preemption of State law, or
where the exercise of State authority
conflicts with the exercise of Federal
authority under the Federal statute.’’
Section 403A of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 343–1) is an express preemption
provision. Section 403A(a) of the FD&C
Act provides that: ‘‘* * * no State or
political subdivision of a State may
directly or indirectly establish under
any authority or continue in effect as to
any food in interstate commerce—(4)
any requirement for nutrition labeling of
food that is not identical to the
requirement of section 403(q) * * *.’’
The express preemption provision of
section 403A(a) of the FD&C Act does
not preempt any State or local
requirement respecting a statement in
the labeling of food that provides for a
warning concerning the safety of the
food or component of the food (section
6(c)(2) of the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101–535,
104 Stat. 2353, 2364 (1990)). If this
proposed rule is made final, the final
rule would create requirements that fall
within the scope of section 403A(a) of
the FD&C Act.
VIII. References
The following reference is on display
in the Dockets Management Staff (see
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing
by interested persons between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it
is also available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified
the Web site addresses, as of the date
this document publishes in the Federal
Register, but Web sites are subject to
change over time.
1. United States Department of Health and
Human Services. United States Food and
Drug Administration. Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis, Preliminary
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
Proposed Rule on ‘‘Food Labeling:
Revision of the Nutrition and
Supplement Facts Labels and Serving
Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be
Consumed At One Eating Occasion;
Dual-Column Labeling; Updating,
Modifying, and Establishing Certain
Reference Amounts Customarily
Consumed; Serving Size for Breath
Mints; and Technical Amendments;
Extension of Compliance Dates.’’
September 2017. Available from https://
www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Reports
ManualsForms/Reports/Economic
Analyses.
Dated: September 26, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning,
Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017–21019 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 17
RIN 2900–AQ06
Authority of Health Care Providers To
Practice Telehealth
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its
medical regulations by standardizing
the delivery of care by VA health care
providers through telehealth. This rule
would ensure that VA health care
providers provide the same level of care
to all beneficiaries, irrespective of the
State or location in a State of the VA
health care provider or the beneficiary.
This proposed rule would achieve
important Federal interests by
increasing the availability of mental
health, specialty, and general clinical
care for all beneficiaries.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 1, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted through https://
www.Regulations.gov by mail or handSUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
delivery to: Director, Regulation Policy
and Management (00REG), Department
of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave.
NW., Room 1063B, Washington, DC
20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026.
(This is not a toll-free telephone
number.) Comments should indicate
that they are submitted in response to
‘‘RIN 2900–AQ06-Authority of Health
Care Providers to Practice Telehealth.’’
Copies of comments received will be
available for public inspection in the
Office of Regulation Policy and
Management, Room 1068, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday (except
holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 for
an appointment. (This is not a toll-free
telephone number.) In addition, during
the comment period, comments may be
viewed online through the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) at
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Galpin, MD, Executive Director
Telehealth Services, Veterans Health
Administration Office of Connected
Care, 810 Vermont Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20420. (404) 771–8794.
(This is not a toll-free number.)
Kevin.Galpin@va.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
7301 of title 38, United States Code
(U.S.C.), establishes the general
functions of the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA) within VA, and
establishes that its primary function is
to ‘‘provide a complete medical and
hospital service for the medical care and
treatment of veterans, as provided in
this title and in regulations prescribed
by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs
(Secretary)] pursuant to this title.’’ 38
U.S.C. 7301(b). In carrying out this
function, VHA must ensure that patient
care is appropriate and safe and its
health care providers meet or exceed
generally accepted professional
standards for patient care. In addition,
because VA is a national health care
provider, VHA must ensure that
beneficiaries receive the same high level
of care and access to care no matter
where, in a State, a beneficiary or health
care provider is located at the time the
health care is provided.
The Secretary is responsible for the
proper execution and administration of
all laws administered by the Department
and for the control, direction, and
management of the Department,
including agency personnel and
management matters. See 38 U.S.C. 303.
To this end, Congress authorized the
Secretary ‘‘to prescribe all rules and
regulations which are necessary or
appropriate to carry out the laws
administered by the Department and are
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
consistent with those laws.’’ 38 U.S.C.
501(a). The Under Secretary for Health
is directly responsible to the Secretary
for the operation of VHA. 38 U.S.C.
305(b). Unless specifically otherwise
provided, the Under Secretary for
Health, as the head of VHA, is
authorized to ‘‘prescribe all regulations
necessary to the administration of the
Veterans Health Administration,’’
subject to the approval of the Secretary.
38 U.S.C. 7304.
To allow VA to carry out its medical
care mission, Congress also established
a comprehensive personnel system for
certain VA health care providers,
independent of the civil service rules.
See 38 U.S.C. chapters 73–74. Congress
granted the Secretary express statutory
authority to establish the qualifications
for VA’s health care providers,
determine the hours and conditions of
employment, take disciplinary action
against employees, and otherwise
regulate the professional activities of
those individuals. 38 U.S.C. 7401–7464.
To be eligible for appointment as a
VA employee in a health care position
covered by section 7402(b) of title 38,
U.S.C. (other than a medical facility
Director appointed under section
7402(b)(4)), a person must, among other
requirements, be licensed, registered, or
certified to practice his or her profession
in a State. The standards prescribed in
section 7402(b) establish only the basic
qualifications necessary ‘‘[t]o be eligible
for appointment’’ and do not limit the
Secretary or Under Secretary for Health
from establishing other qualifications
for appointment, or additional rules
governing such personnel. In particular,
section 7403(a)(1) provides that
appointments under chapter 74 ‘‘may be
made only after qualifications have been
established in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary,
without regard to civil-service
requirements.’’ Such authority is
necessary to ensure the viability of our
national health care system, which is
designed to ensure the well-being of
those who have ‘‘borne the battle.’’
Just as it is critical to ensure there are
qualified health care providers on-site at
all VA medical facilities, VA must
ensure that all beneficiaries, specifically
including beneficiaries in remote, rural,
or medically underserved areas, have
the greatest possible access to mental
health care, specialty care, and general
clinical care. Thus, VA has developed a
telehealth program as a modern,
beneficiary- and family-centered health
care delivery model that leverages
information and telecommunication
technologies to connect beneficiaries
with health care providers, irrespective
of the State or location within a State
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
where the health care provider or the
beneficiary is physically located at the
time the health care is provided.
Telehealth enhances VA’s capacity to
deliver essential and critical health care
services to beneficiaries located in areas
where health care providers may be
unavailable or to beneficiaries who may
be unable to travel to the nearest VA
medical facility for care because of their
medical conditions. Telehealth
increases the accessibility of VA health
care, bringing VA medical services to
locations convenient for beneficiaries,
including clinics in remote
communities and beneficiaries’ homes.
By providing health care services by
telehealth from one State to a
beneficiary located in another State or
within the same State, whether that
beneficiary is located at a VA medical
facility or in his or her own home, VA
can use its limited health care resources
most efficiently.
Congress has required other
Departments and agencies to conduct
telehealth programs. See, e.g., Public
Law 114–328, sec. 718(a)(1) (‘‘the
Secretary of Defense shall incorporate,
throughout the direct care and
purchased care components of the
military health system, the use of
telehealth services’’). While VA does not
have an analogous mandate, several
statutes confirm that Congress intends
for VA to operate a national health care
system for beneficiaries including
through telehealth. Congress has
required the Secretary ‘‘to carry out an
initiative of teleconsultation for the
provision of remote mental health and
traumatic brain injury assessments in
facilities of the Department that are not
otherwise able to provide such
assessments without contracting with
third-party providers or reimbursing
providers through a fee basis system.’’
38 U.S.C. 1709A(a)(1). Congress has
authorized the Secretary to ‘‘waive the
imposition or collection of copayments
for telehealth and telemedicine visits of
veterans under the laws administered by
the Secretary.’’ 38 U.S.C. 1722B. And, as
recently as December 2016, Congress
required VA to initiate a pilot program
to provide veterans a self-scheduling,
online appointment system; this pilot
program must ‘‘support appointments
for the provision of health care
regardless of whether such care is
provided in person or through
telehealth services.’’ Public Law 114–
286, sec. 3(a)(2).
As noted above, VA only has legal
authority to hire health care providers
who are licensed, registered, or certified
in a State. To continue practicing in VA,
providers must maintain those
credentials in accordance with their
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45757
health care specialty as stated in 38
U.S.C. 7402(b).
In an effort to furnish care to all
beneficiaries and use its resources most
efficiently, VA needs to operate its
telehealth program with health care
providers who will provide services via
telehealth to beneficiaries in States in
which they are not licensed, registered,
certified, or located, or where they are
not authorized to furnish care using
telehealth. Currently, doing so may
jeopardize these providers’ credentials,
including fines and imprisonment for
unauthorized practice of medicine,
because of conflicts between VA’s need
to provide telehealth across the VA
system and some States’ laws or
licensure, registration, certification, or
other requirements that restrict or limit
the practice of telehealth. A number of
States have already enacted legislation
or regulations that restrict the practice
of interstate telehealth, as discussed
below in the Administrative Procedure
Act section.
To protect VA health care providers
from potential adverse actions by States,
many VA medical centers (VAMC) are
currently not expanding some critical
telehealth services if the health care
service is provided outside Federal
property (such as when the beneficiary
is receiving telehealth care in his or her
home or when the VA provider is
delivering telehealth care from his or
her home) or across State lines. In
addition, many individual VA health
care providers refuse to practice
telehealth because of concerns over
States taking action against the health
care provider’s State license, State laws,
or the shifting regulatory landscape that
creates legal ambiguity and
unacceptable State licensing risk. The
current disparities between VA health
care practice in telehealth and State
laws have effectively stopped or
inhibited VA’s expansion of telehealth
services to certain locations, thereby
reducing the availability and
accessibility of care for beneficiaries.
This proposed rulemaking would
clarify that VA health care providers
may exercise their authority to provide
care through the use of telehealth,
notwithstanding any State laws, rules,
or licensure, registration, or certification
requirements to the contrary. In so
doing, VA would exercise Federal
preemption of State licensure,
registration, and certification laws,
rules, regulations, or requirements to the
extent such State laws conflict with the
ability of VA health care providers to
engage in the practice of telehealth
while acting within the scope of their
VA employment. Preemption would be
the minimum necessary action for VA to
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45758
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
furnish effectively telehealth services
because it would be impractical for VA
to lobby each State to remove its
restrictions that impair VA’s ability to
furnish telehealth services to
beneficiaries and then wait for the State
to implement appropriate changes. That
process would delay the growth of
telehealth services in VA, thereby
delaying delivery of health care to
beneficiaries. It would be costly and
time-consuming for VA and would not
guarantee a successful result. We note
that, apart from the limited action of
authorizing telehealth across and within
jurisdictions in furtherance of important
Federal interests, this rulemaking would
not expand the scope of practice for VA
health care providers beyond what is
statutorily defined in the laws and
practice acts of the health care
provider’s state of licensure. That is,
this rulemaking does not affect VA’s
existing requirement that all VA health
care providers adhere to restrictions
imposed by their State license,
registration, or certification regarding
the professional’s authority to prescribe
and administer controlled substances.
As VA’s telehealth program expands
and successfully provides increased
access to high quality health care to all
beneficiaries, it is increasingly
important for VA health care providers
to be able to practice telehealth across
State lines and within states free of
restrictions imposed by State law or
regulations, including conditions
attached to their State licenses. For
fiscal year (FY) 2016, VA health care
providers had 2.17 million telehealth
episodes of health care (meaning a
clinical encounter or a period of time in
which care was monitored), which
served over 702,000 veterans
(approximately 12 percent of the total
patient population), with 45 percent of
those veterans living in rural
communities. By increasing VA’s
capabilities to provide telehealth
services, VA would be able to expand
these services.
Eliminating veteran suicide and
providing access to mental health care
is VA’s number one clinical priority,
and this proposed rulemaking would
improve VA’s ability to reach its most
vulnerable beneficiaries. Some mental
health patients suffer from conditions,
such as anxiety and agoraphobia, which
make it incredibly difficult to leave their
houses to receive necessary mental and
general health care. Furthermore, some
of our beneficiaries live in areas that are
Federally designated as mental health
provider shortage areas. Therefore, even
if beneficiaries feel comfortable leaving
their home to seek care, there may not
be sufficient mental health care
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
providers at a VA medical facility or in
the community to address their health
care needs. Given the difficulty in
providing mental health care under
these circumstances, the most practical
way to consistently provide all VA
beneficiaries with access to high-quality
mental health care is through the
telehealth program. The data collected
in FY 2016 demonstrates that telehealth,
particularly in the mental health
context, improves patient care and
improves patient outcomes. In FY 2016,
there was a 31 percent decrease in VA
hospital admissions for beneficiaries
enrolled in the Home Telehealth
monitoring program for noninstitutional care needs and chronic
care management. Also, beneficiaries
who received mental health services
through synchronous video telehealth in
FY 2016 saw a reduction in the number
of acute psychiatric VA bed days of care
by 39 percent.
In addition, monitoring general
medical conditions in the beneficiaries’
home empowers beneficiaries to take a
more active role in their overall health
care without adding the stress of
commuting to a medical facility to
receive the same type of care. Telehealth
is particularly important for
beneficiaries with limited mobility, or
for whom travel to a health care
provider would be a personal hardship.
For example, beneficiaries who have
conditions such as a history of stroke,
traumatic brain injuries, seizure
disorders, and amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS) may find it difficult to
leave their home in order to receive
much-needed health care. VA also is
able to provide health care services to
more beneficiaries in localities that are
more convenient for them, which may
lead to the beneficiary taking a more
proactive approach to their care, thereby
increasing the likelihood of positive
clinical outcomes.
Other benefits of expanding VA
telehealth include serving as a
recruitment incentive for VA health care
providers and allowing VA to address
recruitment shortages in various parts of
the country. For example, the
Charleston, South Carolina VAMC
serves as one of the VA’s National
TeleMental Health Hubs and provides
mental health services to beneficiaries
across eight States with a team of
approximately 30 full-time health care
providers. There are currently multiple
vacancies for TeleMental Health
psychiatrists at the Charleston Hub, and
in the past six months, applicants have
only expressed interest in telework
positions. Several VA health care
providers have also left their positions
within the past year because they were
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
seeking telework positions. If the health
care providers were able to practice
telehealth while working from VAapproved alternate worksites and still
deliver the telehealth services where
needed, the Charleston TeleMental Hub
would be able to fill its vacancies and
retain needed health care professionals.
These are just some examples of how
expanding telehealth, and thereby
expanding the locations where VA
provides health care services, would
allow VA to reach underserved areas or
beneficiaries who are unable to travel,
improving health outcomes for
beneficiaries and allowing VA to better
utilize its health care resources. For
these reasons, VA proposes to establish
a new regulation, 38 CFR 17.417 that
would authorize VA health care
providers to treat beneficiaries through
telehealth irrespective of the location, in
a State, of the VA health care provider
or the beneficiary.
Proposed paragraph (a) of § 17.417
would contain the definitions that
would apply to the new section. We
would define the term ‘‘beneficiary’’ to
mean ‘‘a veteran and any other
individual receiving care under title 38
of the United States Code.’’ We would
use this definition because VA provides
health care to veterans, certain family
members of veterans, servicemembers,
and others. This is VA’s standard use of
this term.
We propose to define the term ‘‘health
care provider’’ consistent with the
qualifications of appointees within the
Veterans Health Administration under
38 U.S.C. 7402(b). We would
incorporate the licensure, registration,
or certification requirement from section
7402(b) and would state that health care
providers must maintain ‘‘credentials
(e.g., license, registration, or
certification) in accordance with the
requirements of their health care
specialty as identified under 38 U.S.C.
7402(b).’’ This standard would ensure
that VA health care providers are
qualified to practice their individual
health care specialty and also ensure
patient safety. A health care provider as
defined in this regulation cannot be a
VA-contracted employee. Contract
health care providers would be required
to adhere to their individual State
license, registration, or certification
requirements.
We propose to define the term ‘‘State’’
consistent with 38 U.S.C. 101(20), and
including political subdivisions of such
States. We include political
subdivisions in the definition because
subdivisions of a State are granted legal
authority from the State itself, so it
would make sense to include entities
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
created by a State, or authorized by a
State in the definition.
Last, in proposed paragraph (a)(4) of
§ 17.417, we would define the term
‘‘telehealth’’ to mean ‘‘the use of
electronic information or
telecommunications technologies to
support clinical health care, patient and
professional health-related education,
public health, and health
administration.’’ This definition would
be consistent with other statutory
definitions, such as a provision in the
Public Health Service Act regarding
mental health services delivered by
telehealth in 42 U.S.C. 254c–16(a)(4).
As we have mentioned in this
rulemaking, currently, individual States
can restrict and limit where a health
care provider can practice under a State
license, certification, or registration.
This proposed rulemaking would
authorize VA health care providers to
furnish telehealth services without
regard to any State restriction that
would prevent the provider from
delivering care via telehealth. Proposed
paragraph (b)(1) of § 17.417 would state
that VA health care providers could
provide ‘‘telehealth services, within
their scope of practice and in
accordance with privileges granted to
them by the Department, irrespective of
the State or location within a State
where the health care provider or the
beneficiary is physically located.’’ This
would authorize VA health care
providers to furnish care, consistent
with their employment obligations,
through telehealth, without fear of
adverse action by any State. A health
care provider’s practice within VA,
however, would continue to be subject
to the limitations ‘‘imposed by the
Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.
801 et seq., on the authority to prescribe
or administer controlled substances, as
well as any other limitations on the
provision of VA care set forth in
applicable Federal law and policy.’’
This would ensure that providers would
still be in compliance with critical laws
concerning the prescribing and
administering of controlled substances.
We would also state that this
rulemaking ‘‘only grants health care
providers the ability to practice
telehealth within the scope of their VA
employment and does not otherwise
grant health care providers additional
authorities that go beyond the scope of
the health care providers’ State license,
registration, or certification.’’
In proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i)
through (vii) of § 17.417, we would
provide situations where a health care
provider’s practice of telehealth could
be inconsistent with a State law or State
license, registration, or certification
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
requirements while engaging in the
practice of telehealth in VA. These
examples would be consistent with the
reasons VA is proposing to take this
rulemaking action, as described above.
Proposed paragraph (c) would
expressly state the intended preemptive
effect of § 17.417, to ensure that
conflicting State and local laws, rules,
regulations, and requirements related to
health care providers’ practice would
have no force or effect when such
providers are practicing telehealth while
working within the scope of their VA
employment. In circumstances where
there is a conflict between Federal and
State law, Federal law would prevail in
accordance with Article VI, clause 2, of
the U.S. Constitution (Supremacy
Clause).
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Section 4 of Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) requires an agency that is
publishing a regulation that preempts
State law to follow certain procedures.
Section 4(b) requires agencies to
‘‘construe any authorization in the
statute for the issuance of regulations as
authorizing preemption of State law by
rulemaking only when the exercise of
State authority directly conflicts with
the exercise of Federal authority under
the Federal statute or there is clear
evidence to conclude that the Congress
intended the agency to have the
authority to preempt State law.’’ Section
4(c) states ‘‘Any regulatory preemption
of State law shall be restricted to the
minimum level necessary to achieve the
objectives of the statute pursuant to
which the regulations are promulgated.’’
Section 4(d) requires that when an
agency ‘‘foresees the possibility of a
conflict between State law and
Federally protected interests within its
area of regulatory responsibility, the
agency shall consult, to the extent
practicable, with appropriate State and
local officials in an effort to avoid such
a conflict.’’ Section 4(e) requires that
when an agency ‘‘proposes to act
through adjudication or rulemaking to
preempt State law, the agency shall
provide all affected State and local
officials notice and an opportunity for
appropriate participation in the
proceedings.’’ Section 6(c) states that
‘‘To the extent practicable and
permitted by law, no agency shall
promulgate any regulation that has
federalism implications and that
preempts State law, unless the agency,
prior to the formal promulgation of the
regulation, (1) consulted with State and
local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation; (2)
in a separately identified portion of the
preamble to the regulation as it is to be
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45759
issued in the Federal Register, provides
to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget a federalism
summary impact statement, which
consists of a description of the extent of
the agency’s prior consultation with
State and local officials, a summary of
the nature of their concerns and the
agency’s position supporting the need to
issue the regulation, and a statement of
the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met;
and (3) makes available to the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
any written communications submitted
to the agency by State and local
officials.’’
Because this proposed rule would
preempt certain State laws, VA
consulted with State officials in
compliance with sections 4(d) and (e),
as well as section 6(c) of Executive
Order 13132. VA sent a letter to the
National Governor’s Association,
Association of State and Provincial
Psychology, National Council of State
Boards of Nursing, Federation of State
Medical Boards, Association of Social
Work Boards, and National Association
of State Directors of Veterans Affairs on
July 12, 2017, to state VA’s intent to
allow VA health care providers to
practice telehealth irrespective of the
location of the health care provider or
beneficiary in any State and regardless
of State telehealth restrictions. In
addition, the Director of the Federation
of State Medical Boards solicited
comments and input from the nation’s
State Medical Boards. The Wisconsin
Medical Examining Board unanimously
passed a motion in support of the rule.
The Rhode Island Board of Medical
Licensure & Discipline (BMLD)
responded to our letter by stating that
BMLD considers physicians employed
by VA to be exempt from license
requirements as long as such physician
maintains a valid license in another U.S.
jurisdiction. BMLD also indicated that
the exemption does not necessarily
extend to prescribing controlled
substances without an appropriate DEA
registration. In response to this caveat,
we have stated in this proposed rule
that, if finalized, VA health care
providers would be subject to ‘‘the
limitations imposed by the Controlled
Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq.,
on the authority to prescribe or
administer controlled substances, as
well as any other limitations on the
provision of VA care set forth in
applicable Federal law and policy.’’ The
State of Utah Department of Commerce
also stated that the Utah Occupations
and Professions Licensing Act exempts
from licensure requirements in Utah
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45760
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
physicians, physician assistants,
advanced practice nurses, psychologists
or other health care provider who
provide telehealth services as part of
their VA employment as long as such
health care provider is licensed in any
State. Utah supports VA efforts to
enhance telehealth services to all
veterans. The Florida Board of Medicine
stated that Florida does not prohibit the
practice of telehealth except in certain
circumstances and provided as an
example that an in-person examination
is required each time a physician issues
a certification for medical marijuana.
This proposed rule would supersede
any State requirement regarding the
practice of telehealth, such as the inperson examination requirement in
Florida, and would maintain the
restrictions imposed by Federal law and
policy regarding the prescription of
controlled substances. The North
Carolina Medical Board recognizes the
shortage of psychiatric care in rural and
medically underserved communities
and supports VA’s initiative.
The President of the National
Association of State Directors of
Veterans Affairs (NASDVA) sent an
email to all of its State directors
informing the directors of the
association’s intent to fully support
VA’s initiative. The NASDVA also
formally responded to our letter, which
fully supports VA’s plans to amend its
regulations and enhance access to
health care via telehealth services. The
National Council of State Boards of
Nursing (NCSBN) fully supports VA’s
initiative for health care providers to
deliver services via telehealth as long as
such providers maintain a valid State
license. However, the NCSBN does not
support expanding VA State licensure
exemptions to personal services
contractors who practice telehealth. As
stated in this proposed rulemaking, VA
contractors would be excluded from
providing telehealth services.
The Chief Executive Officer of the
Association of State and Provincial
Psychology Boards formally responded
to our letter and indicated that the
proposed rule is in alignment with their
current initiatives, specifically,
Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact
(PSYPACT) legislation, which has been
adopted in three jurisdictions and is
under active consideration in many
more States. The PSYPACT legislation
allows psychologists to provide
telepsychology services across State
lines via a compact without obtaining
additional licenses. The Chief Executive
Officer further stated that these services
will be of assistance in addressing the
delivery of telehealth services to
veterans.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
The Veterans’ Rural Health Advisory
Committee (VRHAC) formally submitted
a letter in support of the proposed rule.
The letter stated that although VA leads
the way in being the largest provider of
telehealth in the country, there are
barriers that affect many rural and
highly rural areas, which includes
limited internet or cellular access with
sufficient bandwidth to support the
required applications and also State
legislations that restrict the practice of
telehealth across State lines or into a
veteran’s home. The commenter
strongly supports the proposed rule and
further adds that expanding telehealth
to rural and highly rural veterans across
State lines would strengthen the
delivery of care to enrolled veterans
who live in rural and highly rural areas
and supports the critical need for access
to mental health care.
The West Virginia Board of
Osteopathic Medicine responded to
VA’s letter and indicated that West
Virginia has made legislative changes to
encourage physician participation in the
VA system. The commenter stated that
W.Va. Code 30–14–12c authorizes the
West Virginia licensing boards to issue
a license to a physician licensed in
another State via reciprocity when the
applicant presents proof that they are a
VA employee working in a VA medical
facility that is located in a county where
a nursing home is operated by the West
Virginia Department of Veteran’s
Assistance. Also, W.Va. Code 30–14–
12d states the requirements for
practicing telemedicine in West Virginia
and defines that the practice of
medicine occurs where the patient is
located and defines what constitutes a
physician-patient relationship. The
commenter stated that the West Virginia
Board of Osteopathic Medicine rarely
knows when a VA physician is
practicing in West Virginia without a
West Virginia State license. However,
the commenter cautioned that if a VA
physician is licensed in West Virginia
and does not follow state law and such
action becomes known to the Board, the
Board would file a complaint and
investigate such action. The commenter
stated that their telehealth law was
written to protect patients and indicated
that veterans deserved the same high
quality care. As we have stated in this
proposed rule, we are preempting State
law as it applies to health care providers
who practice telehealth while acting
within the scope of their VA
employment.
The Pennsylvania State Board of
Medicine responded to VA’s letter and
acknowledged the potential value for
telehealth to expand access to health
care, especially in rural and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
underserved areas. The commenter
further stated that Pennsylvania law on
the Interstate Medical Licensure
Compact affirms that the practice of
medicine occurs where the patient is
located at the time of the health care
encounter, which requires the physician
to be under the jurisdiction of the State
medical board where the patient is
located. The commenter indicated that
VA has oversight of its health care
providers, however, the foundational
principle that the physician should be
licensed where the patient is located
helps to assure the safety, quality, and
accountability of the care provided. This
proposed rule preempts State law as it
applies to health care providers who
practice telehealth while acting within
the scope of their VA employment.
The Michigan Department of
Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
responded to VA’s letter by stating that
Michigan law does not require a VA
health care provider to hold a Michigan
State license in the discharge of official
duties. The commenter also stated that
telehealth at a VA medical facility
would be permitted. However, if the
health care provider is delivering care to
the beneficiary’s home, such provider
would need a Michigan State license. As
we have indicated in this proposed rule,
VA would preempt State law as it
applies to health care providers who
practice telehealth while acting within
the scope of their VA employment.
The Virginia Board of Medicine
responded to VA’s letter by stating that
the Executive Committee of the Board
met and supported the enhancement of
access to care for veterans. The
commenter stated that the proposed rule
should benefit many beneficiaries that
have little or no access to health care.
The comments provided above will be
placed on Regulations.gov for public
inspection during the comment period.
Stakeholders will also have an
opportunity to provide comments
during the notice and comment period.
This proposed rule complies with
Executive Order 13132 by (1)
identifying where the exercise of State
authority would directly conflict with
the rule; (2) limiting preemption to
these areas of conflict; (3) restricting
preemption to the minimum level
necessary to achieve the objectives of
the statutes pursuant to which the rule
is promulgated; (4) consulting with the
external stakeholders listed in this rule;
and (5) providing opportunity for all
affected State and local officials to
comment on this proposed rulemaking.
Effect of Rulemaking
Title 38 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as revised by this proposed
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
rule, represents VA’s implementation of
its legal authority on this subject. Other
than future amendments to this rule or
governing statutes, no contrary guidance
or procedures are authorized. All
existing or subsequent VA guidance
must be read to conform with this rule
if possible. If not possible, such
guidance is superseded by this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no
provisions constituting a collection of
information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3521).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as
they are defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This
proposed rule directly affects only
individuals who are VA employees and
will not directly affect small entities.
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
this rulemaking is exempt from the
initial and final regulatory flexibility
analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review) defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ requiring review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), unless OMB waives such
review, as ‘‘any regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule that may: (1)
Have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local,
or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency; (3)
Materially alter the budgetary impact of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.’’
OMB has determined that it is a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 given the policy
implications. In addition, under
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs), this proposed rule is expected to
be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action,
though VA is not able to quantify any
cost savings associated with it. VA’s
impact analysis can be found as a
supporting document at https://
www.regulations.gov, usually within 48
hours after the rulemaking document is
published. Additionally, a copy of the
rulemaking and its impact analysis are
available on VA’s Web site at https://
www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the
link for ‘‘VA Regulations Published
from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to
Date.’’
Executive Order 12866 also directs
agencies to ‘‘include a comment period
of not less than 60 days.’’ Given the
importance of telehealth in providing
critical, and potentially lifesaving,
access to health care for our
beneficiaries, VA must act
expeditiously, through this rulemaking,
to ensure that it can expand its
telehealth program. The primary barrier
to the expansion of VA’s telehealth
program is that States’ licensing boards
have placed explicit restrictions on the
use of telehealth in their States and have
not made exceptions for VA providers,
which ultimately inhibits VA providers
from delivering VA health care to
beneficiaries. Five of the States with the
largest veteran populations, California,
Texas, Florida, New York, and Ohio,
have enacted laws and rules that restrict
health care providers’ ability to practice
telehealth across State lines. See, 16
C.C.R. § 1815.5; Cal Bus & Prof Code
§§ 2052, 2060; TX Occupation Code
§ 151.056; TX Admin Code, Title 22,
§ 172.12; FL Admin Code 64B8–9.0141;
FL Admin Code 64B15–14.0081; NY
Consolidated Law Service Public Health
§ 2805–u; OH Revised Code Annotated,
Sec. 4731.296(C). As telehealth
capabilities continue to expand, new
State legislation and regulations across
the country are enacted relating to the
practice of telehealth. The possibility of
sanctions to VA health care providers’
State license, including fines and
imprisonment for unauthorized practice
of medicine has hindered VA’s ability to
expand its telehealth program. To
protect VA health care providers from
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45761
potential adverse actions by States,
many VAMCs are currently not
expanding some critical telehealth
services if the health care service is
provided outside Federal property (such
as when the VA provider is delivering
telehealth care from his or her home) or
across State lines, or the care is
delivered in a beneficiary’s home. In
addition many individual VA health
care providers refuse to practice
telehealth because of concerns over
States taking action against their State
license. This rule will supersede State
restrictions on the practice of telehealth
and allow VA health care providers to
practice telehealth anywhere within a
State (such as from the residence of the
health care provider) and across State
lines.
In sum, providing a 60 day public
comment period instead of a 30 day
public comment period would be
against public interest and the health
and safety of VA beneficiaries because
any restriction from a State or State
licensing board on practicing telehealth,
within the State or across State lines,
could impede beneficiaries’ access to
health care, which will ultimately
impact the health of the beneficiary. For
the above reasons, the Secretary issues
this rule with a 30 day public comment
period. VA will consider and address
comments that are received within 30
days of the date this proposed rule is
published in the Federal Register.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year. This proposed rule will have
no such effect on State, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance numbers and titles for the
programs affected by this document are:
64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers;
64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care;
64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits;
64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care;
64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012,
Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013,
Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.018,
Sharing Specialized Medical Resources;
64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol
and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans
Home Based Primary Care; 64.039
CHAMPVA; 64.040 VHA Inpatient
Medicine; 64.041 VHA Outpatient
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
45762
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Specialty Care; 64.042 VHA Inpatient
Surgery; 64.043 VHA Mental Health
Residential; 64.044 VHA Home Care;
64.045 VHA Outpatient Ancillary
Services; 64.046 VHA Inpatient
Psychiatry; 64.047 VHA Primary Care;
64.048 VHA Mental Health Clinics;
64.049 VHA Community Living Center;
and 64.050 VHA Diagnostic Care.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
designee, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina
S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
approved this document on July 28,
2017 for publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug
abuse, Foreign relations, Government
contracts, Grant programs—health,
Grant programs—veterans, Health care,
Health facilities, Health professions,
Health records, Homeless, Medical and
dental schools, Medical devices,
Medical research, Mental health
programs, Nursing homes, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Scholarships and fellowships, Travel
and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Dated: September 26, 2017.
Michael Shores,
Director, Regulation Policy & Management,
Office of the Secretary, Department of
Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, we propose to amend 38 CFR
part 17 as follows:
PART 17—MEDICAL
1. The authority citation for part 17 is
amended by adding an entry for
§ 17.417 in numerical order to read in
part as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in
specific sections.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
Section 17.417 also issued under 38 U.S.C.
1701 (note), 1709A, 1712A (note), 1722B,
7301, 7330A, 7401–7403; 7406 (note)).
2. Revise the undesignated center
heading immediately after § 17.412 to
read as follows:
■
Authority of Health Care Providers to
Practice in the Department
■
3. Add § 17.417 to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
§ 17.417
Health care providers.
(a) Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this section.
(1) Beneficiary. The term beneficiary
means a veteran or any other individual
receiving health care under title 38 of
the United States Code.
(2) Health care provider. The term
health care provider means an
individual who:
(i) Is licensed, registered, or certified
in a State to practice a health care
specialty identified under 38 U.S.C.
7402(b);
(ii) Is appointed to an occupation in
the Veterans Health Administration that
is listed in or authorized under 38
U.S.C. 7401(1) or (3);
(iii) Maintains credentials (e.g., a
license, registration, or certification) in
accordance with the requirements of his
or her medical specialty as identified
under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b); and
(iv) Is not a VA-contracted employee.
(3) State. The term State means a State
as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(20), or a
political subdivision of such a State.
(4) Telehealth. The term telehealth
means the use of electronic information
or telecommunications technologies to
support clinical health care, patient and
professional health-related education,
public health, and health
administration.
(b) Health care provider’s practice. (1)
Health care providers may provide
telehealth services, within their scope of
practice and in accordance with
privileges granted to them by the
Department, irrespective of the State or
location within a State where the health
care provider or the beneficiary is
physically located. Health care
providers’ practice is subject to the
limitations imposed by the Controlled
Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq.,
on the authority to prescribe or
administer controlled substances, as
well as any other limitations on the
provision of VA care set forth in
applicable Federal law and policy. This
section only grants health care providers
the ability to practice telehealth within
the scope of their VA employment and
does not otherwise grant health care
providers additional authorities that go
beyond the scope of the health care
providers’ State license, registration, or
certification.
(2) Situations where a health care
provider’s VA practice of telehealth may
be inconsistent with a State law or State
license, registration, or certification
requirements related to telehealth
include when:
(i) The beneficiary and the health care
provider are physically located in
different States during the episode of
care;
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(ii) The beneficiary is receiving
services in a State other than the health
care provider’s State of licensure,
registration, or certification;
(iii) The health care provider is
delivering services in a State other than
the health care provider’s State of
licensure, registration, or certification;
(iv) The health care provider is
delivering services either on or outside
VA property;
(v) The beneficiary is receiving
services while she or he is located either
on or outside VA property;
(vi) The beneficiary has or has not
previously been assessed, in person, by
the health care provider; or
(vii) Other State requirements would
prevent or impede the practice of health
care providers delivering telehealth to
VA beneficiaries.
(c) Preemption of State law. To
achieve important Federal interests,
including, but not limited to, the ability
to provide the same complete medical
and hospital service to beneficiaries in
all States under 38 U.S.C. 7301, this
section preempts conflicting State laws
relating to the practice of health care
providers when such health care
providers are practicing telehealth
within the scope of their VA
employment. Any State law, rule,
regulation or requirement pursuant to
such law, is without any force or effect
on, and State governments have no legal
authority to enforce them in relation to,
this section or decisions made by VA
under this section.
[FR Doc. 2017–20951 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0406; FRL–9967–77–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County;
Regional Haze Progress Report State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve a revision to a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo
County, New Mexico (the County)
submitted by the Governor on June 24,
2016. The SIP revision addresses
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM
02OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45756-45762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20951]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 17
RIN 2900-AQ06
Authority of Health Care Providers To Practice Telehealth
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its
medical regulations by standardizing the delivery of care by VA health
care providers through telehealth. This rule would ensure that VA
health care providers provide the same level of care to all
beneficiaries, irrespective of the State or location in a State of the
VA health care provider or the beneficiary. This proposed rule would
achieve important Federal interests by increasing the availability of
mental health, specialty, and general clinical care for all
beneficiaries.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 1, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted through https://www.Regulations.gov by mail or hand-delivery to: Director, Regulation
Policy and Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Ave. NW., Room 1063B, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202)
273-9026. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.) Comments should
indicate that they are submitted in response to ``RIN 2900-AQ06-
Authority of Health Care Providers to Practice Telehealth.'' Copies of
comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office
of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1068, between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays).
Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. (This is not a toll-free
telephone number.) In addition, during the comment period, comments may
be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Galpin, MD, Executive Director
Telehealth Services, Veterans Health Administration Office of Connected
Care, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. (404) 771-8794.
(This is not a toll-free number.) Kevin.Galpin@va.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 7301 of title 38, United States Code
(U.S.C.), establishes the general functions of the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA) within VA, and establishes that its primary
function is to ``provide a complete medical and hospital service for
the medical care and treatment of veterans, as provided in this title
and in regulations prescribed by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs
(Secretary)] pursuant to this title.'' 38 U.S.C. 7301(b). In carrying
out this function, VHA must ensure that patient care is appropriate and
safe and its health care providers meet or exceed generally accepted
professional standards for patient care. In addition, because VA is a
national health care provider, VHA must ensure that beneficiaries
receive the same high level of care and access to care no matter where,
in a State, a beneficiary or health care provider is located at the
time the health care is provided.
The Secretary is responsible for the proper execution and
administration of all laws administered by the Department and for the
control, direction, and management of the Department, including agency
personnel and management matters. See 38 U.S.C. 303. To this end,
Congress authorized the Secretary ``to prescribe all rules and
regulations which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the laws
administered by the Department and are
[[Page 45757]]
consistent with those laws.'' 38 U.S.C. 501(a). The Under Secretary for
Health is directly responsible to the Secretary for the operation of
VHA. 38 U.S.C. 305(b). Unless specifically otherwise provided, the
Under Secretary for Health, as the head of VHA, is authorized to
``prescribe all regulations necessary to the administration of the
Veterans Health Administration,'' subject to the approval of the
Secretary. 38 U.S.C. 7304.
To allow VA to carry out its medical care mission, Congress also
established a comprehensive personnel system for certain VA health care
providers, independent of the civil service rules. See 38 U.S.C.
chapters 73-74. Congress granted the Secretary express statutory
authority to establish the qualifications for VA's health care
providers, determine the hours and conditions of employment, take
disciplinary action against employees, and otherwise regulate the
professional activities of those individuals. 38 U.S.C. 7401-7464.
To be eligible for appointment as a VA employee in a health care
position covered by section 7402(b) of title 38, U.S.C. (other than a
medical facility Director appointed under section 7402(b)(4)), a person
must, among other requirements, be licensed, registered, or certified
to practice his or her profession in a State. The standards prescribed
in section 7402(b) establish only the basic qualifications necessary
``[t]o be eligible for appointment'' and do not limit the Secretary or
Under Secretary for Health from establishing other qualifications for
appointment, or additional rules governing such personnel. In
particular, section 7403(a)(1) provides that appointments under chapter
74 ``may be made only after qualifications have been established in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, without regard
to civil-service requirements.'' Such authority is necessary to ensure
the viability of our national health care system, which is designed to
ensure the well-being of those who have ``borne the battle.''
Just as it is critical to ensure there are qualified health care
providers on-site at all VA medical facilities, VA must ensure that all
beneficiaries, specifically including beneficiaries in remote, rural,
or medically underserved areas, have the greatest possible access to
mental health care, specialty care, and general clinical care. Thus, VA
has developed a telehealth program as a modern, beneficiary- and
family-centered health care delivery model that leverages information
and telecommunication technologies to connect beneficiaries with health
care providers, irrespective of the State or location within a State
where the health care provider or the beneficiary is physically located
at the time the health care is provided. Telehealth enhances VA's
capacity to deliver essential and critical health care services to
beneficiaries located in areas where health care providers may be
unavailable or to beneficiaries who may be unable to travel to the
nearest VA medical facility for care because of their medical
conditions. Telehealth increases the accessibility of VA health care,
bringing VA medical services to locations convenient for beneficiaries,
including clinics in remote communities and beneficiaries' homes. By
providing health care services by telehealth from one State to a
beneficiary located in another State or within the same State, whether
that beneficiary is located at a VA medical facility or in his or her
own home, VA can use its limited health care resources most
efficiently.
Congress has required other Departments and agencies to conduct
telehealth programs. See, e.g., Public Law 114-328, sec. 718(a)(1)
(``the Secretary of Defense shall incorporate, throughout the direct
care and purchased care components of the military health system, the
use of telehealth services''). While VA does not have an analogous
mandate, several statutes confirm that Congress intends for VA to
operate a national health care system for beneficiaries including
through telehealth. Congress has required the Secretary ``to carry out
an initiative of teleconsultation for the provision of remote mental
health and traumatic brain injury assessments in facilities of the
Department that are not otherwise able to provide such assessments
without contracting with third-party providers or reimbursing providers
through a fee basis system.'' 38 U.S.C. 1709A(a)(1). Congress has
authorized the Secretary to ``waive the imposition or collection of
copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of veterans under the
laws administered by the Secretary.'' 38 U.S.C. 1722B. And, as recently
as December 2016, Congress required VA to initiate a pilot program to
provide veterans a self-scheduling, online appointment system; this
pilot program must ``support appointments for the provision of health
care regardless of whether such care is provided in person or through
telehealth services.'' Public Law 114-286, sec. 3(a)(2).
As noted above, VA only has legal authority to hire health care
providers who are licensed, registered, or certified in a State. To
continue practicing in VA, providers must maintain those credentials in
accordance with their health care specialty as stated in 38 U.S.C.
7402(b).
In an effort to furnish care to all beneficiaries and use its
resources most efficiently, VA needs to operate its telehealth program
with health care providers who will provide services via telehealth to
beneficiaries in States in which they are not licensed, registered,
certified, or located, or where they are not authorized to furnish care
using telehealth. Currently, doing so may jeopardize these providers'
credentials, including fines and imprisonment for unauthorized practice
of medicine, because of conflicts between VA's need to provide
telehealth across the VA system and some States' laws or licensure,
registration, certification, or other requirements that restrict or
limit the practice of telehealth. A number of States have already
enacted legislation or regulations that restrict the practice of
interstate telehealth, as discussed below in the Administrative
Procedure Act section.
To protect VA health care providers from potential adverse actions
by States, many VA medical centers (VAMC) are currently not expanding
some critical telehealth services if the health care service is
provided outside Federal property (such as when the beneficiary is
receiving telehealth care in his or her home or when the VA provider is
delivering telehealth care from his or her home) or across State lines.
In addition, many individual VA health care providers refuse to
practice telehealth because of concerns over States taking action
against the health care provider's State license, State laws, or the
shifting regulatory landscape that creates legal ambiguity and
unacceptable State licensing risk. The current disparities between VA
health care practice in telehealth and State laws have effectively
stopped or inhibited VA's expansion of telehealth services to certain
locations, thereby reducing the availability and accessibility of care
for beneficiaries.
This proposed rulemaking would clarify that VA health care
providers may exercise their authority to provide care through the use
of telehealth, notwithstanding any State laws, rules, or licensure,
registration, or certification requirements to the contrary. In so
doing, VA would exercise Federal preemption of State licensure,
registration, and certification laws, rules, regulations, or
requirements to the extent such State laws conflict with the ability of
VA health care providers to engage in the practice of telehealth while
acting within the scope of their VA employment. Preemption would be the
minimum necessary action for VA to
[[Page 45758]]
furnish effectively telehealth services because it would be impractical
for VA to lobby each State to remove its restrictions that impair VA's
ability to furnish telehealth services to beneficiaries and then wait
for the State to implement appropriate changes. That process would
delay the growth of telehealth services in VA, thereby delaying
delivery of health care to beneficiaries. It would be costly and time-
consuming for VA and would not guarantee a successful result. We note
that, apart from the limited action of authorizing telehealth across
and within jurisdictions in furtherance of important Federal interests,
this rulemaking would not expand the scope of practice for VA health
care providers beyond what is statutorily defined in the laws and
practice acts of the health care provider's state of licensure. That
is, this rulemaking does not affect VA's existing requirement that all
VA health care providers adhere to restrictions imposed by their State
license, registration, or certification regarding the professional's
authority to prescribe and administer controlled substances.
As VA's telehealth program expands and successfully provides
increased access to high quality health care to all beneficiaries, it
is increasingly important for VA health care providers to be able to
practice telehealth across State lines and within states free of
restrictions imposed by State law or regulations, including conditions
attached to their State licenses. For fiscal year (FY) 2016, VA health
care providers had 2.17 million telehealth episodes of health care
(meaning a clinical encounter or a period of time in which care was
monitored), which served over 702,000 veterans (approximately 12
percent of the total patient population), with 45 percent of those
veterans living in rural communities. By increasing VA's capabilities
to provide telehealth services, VA would be able to expand these
services.
Eliminating veteran suicide and providing access to mental health
care is VA's number one clinical priority, and this proposed rulemaking
would improve VA's ability to reach its most vulnerable beneficiaries.
Some mental health patients suffer from conditions, such as anxiety and
agoraphobia, which make it incredibly difficult to leave their houses
to receive necessary mental and general health care. Furthermore, some
of our beneficiaries live in areas that are Federally designated as
mental health provider shortage areas. Therefore, even if beneficiaries
feel comfortable leaving their home to seek care, there may not be
sufficient mental health care providers at a VA medical facility or in
the community to address their health care needs. Given the difficulty
in providing mental health care under these circumstances, the most
practical way to consistently provide all VA beneficiaries with access
to high-quality mental health care is through the telehealth program.
The data collected in FY 2016 demonstrates that telehealth,
particularly in the mental health context, improves patient care and
improves patient outcomes. In FY 2016, there was a 31 percent decrease
in VA hospital admissions for beneficiaries enrolled in the Home
Telehealth monitoring program for non-institutional care needs and
chronic care management. Also, beneficiaries who received mental health
services through synchronous video telehealth in FY 2016 saw a
reduction in the number of acute psychiatric VA bed days of care by 39
percent.
In addition, monitoring general medical conditions in the
beneficiaries' home empowers beneficiaries to take a more active role
in their overall health care without adding the stress of commuting to
a medical facility to receive the same type of care. Telehealth is
particularly important for beneficiaries with limited mobility, or for
whom travel to a health care provider would be a personal hardship. For
example, beneficiaries who have conditions such as a history of stroke,
traumatic brain injuries, seizure disorders, and amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS) may find it difficult to leave their home in order to
receive much-needed health care. VA also is able to provide health care
services to more beneficiaries in localities that are more convenient
for them, which may lead to the beneficiary taking a more proactive
approach to their care, thereby increasing the likelihood of positive
clinical outcomes.
Other benefits of expanding VA telehealth include serving as a
recruitment incentive for VA health care providers and allowing VA to
address recruitment shortages in various parts of the country. For
example, the Charleston, South Carolina VAMC serves as one of the VA's
National TeleMental Health Hubs and provides mental health services to
beneficiaries across eight States with a team of approximately 30 full-
time health care providers. There are currently multiple vacancies for
TeleMental Health psychiatrists at the Charleston Hub, and in the past
six months, applicants have only expressed interest in telework
positions. Several VA health care providers have also left their
positions within the past year because they were seeking telework
positions. If the health care providers were able to practice
telehealth while working from VA-approved alternate worksites and still
deliver the telehealth services where needed, the Charleston TeleMental
Hub would be able to fill its vacancies and retain needed health care
professionals.
These are just some examples of how expanding telehealth, and
thereby expanding the locations where VA provides health care services,
would allow VA to reach underserved areas or beneficiaries who are
unable to travel, improving health outcomes for beneficiaries and
allowing VA to better utilize its health care resources. For these
reasons, VA proposes to establish a new regulation, 38 CFR 17.417 that
would authorize VA health care providers to treat beneficiaries through
telehealth irrespective of the location, in a State, of the VA health
care provider or the beneficiary.
Proposed paragraph (a) of Sec. 17.417 would contain the
definitions that would apply to the new section. We would define the
term ``beneficiary'' to mean ``a veteran and any other individual
receiving care under title 38 of the United States Code.'' We would use
this definition because VA provides health care to veterans, certain
family members of veterans, servicemembers, and others. This is VA's
standard use of this term.
We propose to define the term ``health care provider'' consistent
with the qualifications of appointees within the Veterans Health
Administration under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b). We would incorporate the
licensure, registration, or certification requirement from section
7402(b) and would state that health care providers must maintain
``credentials (e.g., license, registration, or certification) in
accordance with the requirements of their health care specialty as
identified under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b).'' This standard would ensure that
VA health care providers are qualified to practice their individual
health care specialty and also ensure patient safety. A health care
provider as defined in this regulation cannot be a VA-contracted
employee. Contract health care providers would be required to adhere to
their individual State license, registration, or certification
requirements.
We propose to define the term ``State'' consistent with 38 U.S.C.
101(20), and including political subdivisions of such States. We
include political subdivisions in the definition because subdivisions
of a State are granted legal authority from the State itself, so it
would make sense to include entities
[[Page 45759]]
created by a State, or authorized by a State in the definition.
Last, in proposed paragraph (a)(4) of Sec. 17.417, we would define
the term ``telehealth'' to mean ``the use of electronic information or
telecommunications technologies to support clinical health care,
patient and professional health-related education, public health, and
health administration.'' This definition would be consistent with other
statutory definitions, such as a provision in the Public Health Service
Act regarding mental health services delivered by telehealth in 42
U.S.C. 254c-16(a)(4).
As we have mentioned in this rulemaking, currently, individual
States can restrict and limit where a health care provider can practice
under a State license, certification, or registration. This proposed
rulemaking would authorize VA health care providers to furnish
telehealth services without regard to any State restriction that would
prevent the provider from delivering care via telehealth. Proposed
paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 17.417 would state that VA health care
providers could provide ``telehealth services, within their scope of
practice and in accordance with privileges granted to them by the
Department, irrespective of the State or location within a State where
the health care provider or the beneficiary is physically located.''
This would authorize VA health care providers to furnish care,
consistent with their employment obligations, through telehealth,
without fear of adverse action by any State. A health care provider's
practice within VA, however, would continue to be subject to the
limitations ``imposed by the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801
et seq., on the authority to prescribe or administer controlled
substances, as well as any other limitations on the provision of VA
care set forth in applicable Federal law and policy.'' This would
ensure that providers would still be in compliance with critical laws
concerning the prescribing and administering of controlled substances.
We would also state that this rulemaking ``only grants health care
providers the ability to practice telehealth within the scope of their
VA employment and does not otherwise grant health care providers
additional authorities that go beyond the scope of the health care
providers' State license, registration, or certification.''
In proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i) through (vii) of Sec. 17.417, we
would provide situations where a health care provider's practice of
telehealth could be inconsistent with a State law or State license,
registration, or certification requirements while engaging in the
practice of telehealth in VA. These examples would be consistent with
the reasons VA is proposing to take this rulemaking action, as
described above.
Proposed paragraph (c) would expressly state the intended
preemptive effect of Sec. 17.417, to ensure that conflicting State and
local laws, rules, regulations, and requirements related to health care
providers' practice would have no force or effect when such providers
are practicing telehealth while working within the scope of their VA
employment. In circumstances where there is a conflict between Federal
and State law, Federal law would prevail in accordance with Article VI,
clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution (Supremacy Clause).
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Section 4 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) requires an agency
that is publishing a regulation that preempts State law to follow
certain procedures. Section 4(b) requires agencies to ``construe any
authorization in the statute for the issuance of regulations as
authorizing preemption of State law by rulemaking only when the
exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of
Federal authority under the Federal statute or there is clear evidence
to conclude that the Congress intended the agency to have the authority
to preempt State law.'' Section 4(c) states ``Any regulatory preemption
of State law shall be restricted to the minimum level necessary to
achieve the objectives of the statute pursuant to which the regulations
are promulgated.'' Section 4(d) requires that when an agency ``foresees
the possibility of a conflict between State law and Federally protected
interests within its area of regulatory responsibility, the agency
shall consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and
local officials in an effort to avoid such a conflict.'' Section 4(e)
requires that when an agency ``proposes to act through adjudication or
rulemaking to preempt State law, the agency shall provide all affected
State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate
participation in the proceedings.'' Section 6(c) states that ``To the
extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State
law, unless the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the
regulation, (1) consulted with State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation; (2) in a separately
identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be
issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget a federalism summary impact statement, which
consists of a description of the extent of the agency's prior
consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of
their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue
the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met; and (3) makes available to the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget any written
communications submitted to the agency by State and local officials.''
Because this proposed rule would preempt certain State laws, VA
consulted with State officials in compliance with sections 4(d) and
(e), as well as section 6(c) of Executive Order 13132. VA sent a letter
to the National Governor's Association, Association of State and
Provincial Psychology, National Council of State Boards of Nursing,
Federation of State Medical Boards, Association of Social Work Boards,
and National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs on July
12, 2017, to state VA's intent to allow VA health care providers to
practice telehealth irrespective of the location of the health care
provider or beneficiary in any State and regardless of State telehealth
restrictions. In addition, the Director of the Federation of State
Medical Boards solicited comments and input from the nation's State
Medical Boards. The Wisconsin Medical Examining Board unanimously
passed a motion in support of the rule. The Rhode Island Board of
Medical Licensure & Discipline (BMLD) responded to our letter by
stating that BMLD considers physicians employed by VA to be exempt from
license requirements as long as such physician maintains a valid
license in another U.S. jurisdiction. BMLD also indicated that the
exemption does not necessarily extend to prescribing controlled
substances without an appropriate DEA registration. In response to this
caveat, we have stated in this proposed rule that, if finalized, VA
health care providers would be subject to ``the limitations imposed by
the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq., on the authority
to prescribe or administer controlled substances, as well as any other
limitations on the provision of VA care set forth in applicable Federal
law and policy.'' The State of Utah Department of Commerce also stated
that the Utah Occupations and Professions Licensing Act exempts from
licensure requirements in Utah
[[Page 45760]]
physicians, physician assistants, advanced practice nurses,
psychologists or other health care provider who provide telehealth
services as part of their VA employment as long as such health care
provider is licensed in any State. Utah supports VA efforts to enhance
telehealth services to all veterans. The Florida Board of Medicine
stated that Florida does not prohibit the practice of telehealth except
in certain circumstances and provided as an example that an in-person
examination is required each time a physician issues a certification
for medical marijuana. This proposed rule would supersede any State
requirement regarding the practice of telehealth, such as the in-person
examination requirement in Florida, and would maintain the restrictions
imposed by Federal law and policy regarding the prescription of
controlled substances. The North Carolina Medical Board recognizes the
shortage of psychiatric care in rural and medically underserved
communities and supports VA's initiative.
The President of the National Association of State Directors of
Veterans Affairs (NASDVA) sent an email to all of its State directors
informing the directors of the association's intent to fully support
VA's initiative. The NASDVA also formally responded to our letter,
which fully supports VA's plans to amend its regulations and enhance
access to health care via telehealth services. The National Council of
State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) fully supports VA's initiative for
health care providers to deliver services via telehealth as long as
such providers maintain a valid State license. However, the NCSBN does
not support expanding VA State licensure exemptions to personal
services contractors who practice telehealth. As stated in this
proposed rulemaking, VA contractors would be excluded from providing
telehealth services.
The Chief Executive Officer of the Association of State and
Provincial Psychology Boards formally responded to our letter and
indicated that the proposed rule is in alignment with their current
initiatives, specifically, Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact
(PSYPACT) legislation, which has been adopted in three jurisdictions
and is under active consideration in many more States. The PSYPACT
legislation allows psychologists to provide telepsychology services
across State lines via a compact without obtaining additional licenses.
The Chief Executive Officer further stated that these services will be
of assistance in addressing the delivery of telehealth services to
veterans.
The Veterans' Rural Health Advisory Committee (VRHAC) formally
submitted a letter in support of the proposed rule. The letter stated
that although VA leads the way in being the largest provider of
telehealth in the country, there are barriers that affect many rural
and highly rural areas, which includes limited internet or cellular
access with sufficient bandwidth to support the required applications
and also State legislations that restrict the practice of telehealth
across State lines or into a veteran's home. The commenter strongly
supports the proposed rule and further adds that expanding telehealth
to rural and highly rural veterans across State lines would strengthen
the delivery of care to enrolled veterans who live in rural and highly
rural areas and supports the critical need for access to mental health
care.
The West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine responded to VA's
letter and indicated that West Virginia has made legislative changes to
encourage physician participation in the VA system. The commenter
stated that W.Va. Code 30-14-12c authorizes the West Virginia licensing
boards to issue a license to a physician licensed in another State via
reciprocity when the applicant presents proof that they are a VA
employee working in a VA medical facility that is located in a county
where a nursing home is operated by the West Virginia Department of
Veteran's Assistance. Also, W.Va. Code 30-14-12d states the
requirements for practicing telemedicine in West Virginia and defines
that the practice of medicine occurs where the patient is located and
defines what constitutes a physician-patient relationship. The
commenter stated that the West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine
rarely knows when a VA physician is practicing in West Virginia without
a West Virginia State license. However, the commenter cautioned that if
a VA physician is licensed in West Virginia and does not follow state
law and such action becomes known to the Board, the Board would file a
complaint and investigate such action. The commenter stated that their
telehealth law was written to protect patients and indicated that
veterans deserved the same high quality care. As we have stated in this
proposed rule, we are preempting State law as it applies to health care
providers who practice telehealth while acting within the scope of
their VA employment.
The Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine responded to VA's letter
and acknowledged the potential value for telehealth to expand access to
health care, especially in rural and underserved areas. The commenter
further stated that Pennsylvania law on the Interstate Medical
Licensure Compact affirms that the practice of medicine occurs where
the patient is located at the time of the health care encounter, which
requires the physician to be under the jurisdiction of the State
medical board where the patient is located. The commenter indicated
that VA has oversight of its health care providers, however, the
foundational principle that the physician should be licensed where the
patient is located helps to assure the safety, quality, and
accountability of the care provided. This proposed rule preempts State
law as it applies to health care providers who practice telehealth
while acting within the scope of their VA employment.
The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
responded to VA's letter by stating that Michigan law does not require
a VA health care provider to hold a Michigan State license in the
discharge of official duties. The commenter also stated that telehealth
at a VA medical facility would be permitted. However, if the health
care provider is delivering care to the beneficiary's home, such
provider would need a Michigan State license. As we have indicated in
this proposed rule, VA would preempt State law as it applies to health
care providers who practice telehealth while acting within the scope of
their VA employment.
The Virginia Board of Medicine responded to VA's letter by stating
that the Executive Committee of the Board met and supported the
enhancement of access to care for veterans. The commenter stated that
the proposed rule should benefit many beneficiaries that have little or
no access to health care.
The comments provided above will be placed on Regulations.gov for
public inspection during the comment period. Stakeholders will also
have an opportunity to provide comments during the notice and comment
period.
This proposed rule complies with Executive Order 13132 by (1)
identifying where the exercise of State authority would directly
conflict with the rule; (2) limiting preemption to these areas of
conflict; (3) restricting preemption to the minimum level necessary to
achieve the objectives of the statutes pursuant to which the rule is
promulgated; (4) consulting with the external stakeholders listed in
this rule; and (5) providing opportunity for all affected State and
local officials to comment on this proposed rulemaking.
Effect of Rulemaking
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this
proposed
[[Page 45761]]
rule, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this
subject. Other than future amendments to this rule or governing
statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All
existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this
rule if possible. If not possible, such guidance is superseded by this
rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection
of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3521).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule directly affects only individuals
who are VA employees and will not directly affect small entities.
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from
the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5
U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a
``significant regulatory action,'' requiring review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as ``any
regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)
Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.''
OMB has determined that it is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 given the policy implications. In addition, under
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs), this proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory
action, though VA is not able to quantify any cost savings associated
with it. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
https://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the
rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the
rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at
https://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for ``VA Regulations
Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.''
Executive Order 12866 also directs agencies to ``include a comment
period of not less than 60 days.'' Given the importance of telehealth
in providing critical, and potentially lifesaving, access to health
care for our beneficiaries, VA must act expeditiously, through this
rulemaking, to ensure that it can expand its telehealth program. The
primary barrier to the expansion of VA's telehealth program is that
States' licensing boards have placed explicit restrictions on the use
of telehealth in their States and have not made exceptions for VA
providers, which ultimately inhibits VA providers from delivering VA
health care to beneficiaries. Five of the States with the largest
veteran populations, California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Ohio,
have enacted laws and rules that restrict health care providers'
ability to practice telehealth across State lines. See, 16 C.C.R. Sec.
1815.5; Cal Bus & Prof Code Sec. Sec. 2052, 2060; TX Occupation Code
Sec. 151.056; TX Admin Code, Title 22, Sec. 172.12; FL Admin Code
64B8-9.0141; FL Admin Code 64B15-14.0081; NY Consolidated Law Service
Public Health Sec. 2805-u; OH Revised Code Annotated, Sec.
4731.296(C). As telehealth capabilities continue to expand, new State
legislation and regulations across the country are enacted relating to
the practice of telehealth. The possibility of sanctions to VA health
care providers' State license, including fines and imprisonment for
unauthorized practice of medicine has hindered VA's ability to expand
its telehealth program. To protect VA health care providers from
potential adverse actions by States, many VAMCs are currently not
expanding some critical telehealth services if the health care service
is provided outside Federal property (such as when the VA provider is
delivering telehealth care from his or her home) or across State lines,
or the care is delivered in a beneficiary's home. In addition many
individual VA health care providers refuse to practice telehealth
because of concerns over States taking action against their State
license. This rule will supersede State restrictions on the practice of
telehealth and allow VA health care providers to practice telehealth
anywhere within a State (such as from the residence of the health care
provider) and across State lines.
In sum, providing a 60 day public comment period instead of a 30
day public comment period would be against public interest and the
health and safety of VA beneficiaries because any restriction from a
State or State licensing board on practicing telehealth, within the
State or across State lines, could impede beneficiaries' access to
health care, which will ultimately impact the health of the
beneficiary. For the above reasons, the Secretary issues this rule with
a 30 day public comment period. VA will consider and address comments
that are received within 30 days of the date this proposed rule is
published in the Federal Register.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires
that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits
before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in
any one year. This proposed rule will have no such effect on State,
local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for
the programs affected by this document are: 64.007, Blind
Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009,
Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care;
64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service;
64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.018, Sharing Specialized
Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug
Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care; 64.039 CHAMPVA;
64.040 VHA Inpatient Medicine; 64.041 VHA Outpatient
[[Page 45762]]
Specialty Care; 64.042 VHA Inpatient Surgery; 64.043 VHA Mental Health
Residential; 64.044 VHA Home Care; 64.045 VHA Outpatient Ancillary
Services; 64.046 VHA Inpatient Psychiatry; 64.047 VHA Primary Care;
64.048 VHA Mental Health Clinics; 64.049 VHA Community Living Center;
and 64.050 VHA Diagnostic Care.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as
an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S.
Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs,
approved this document on July 28, 2017 for publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations,
Government contracts, Grant programs--health, Grant programs--veterans,
Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records,
Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical
research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel and
transportation expenses, Veterans.
Dated: September 26, 2017.
Michael Shores,
Director, Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend 38
CFR part 17 as follows:
PART 17--MEDICAL
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 is amended by adding an entry for
Sec. 17.417 in numerical order to read in part as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
* * * * *
Section 17.417 also issued under 38 U.S.C. 1701 (note), 1709A,
1712A (note), 1722B, 7301, 7330A, 7401-7403; 7406 (note)).
0
2. Revise the undesignated center heading immediately after Sec.
17.412 to read as follows:
Authority of Health Care Providers to Practice in the Department
0
3. Add Sec. 17.417 to read as follows:
Sec. 17.417 Health care providers.
(a) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section.
(1) Beneficiary. The term beneficiary means a veteran or any other
individual receiving health care under title 38 of the United States
Code.
(2) Health care provider. The term health care provider means an
individual who:
(i) Is licensed, registered, or certified in a State to practice a
health care specialty identified under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b);
(ii) Is appointed to an occupation in the Veterans Health
Administration that is listed in or authorized under 38 U.S.C. 7401(1)
or (3);
(iii) Maintains credentials (e.g., a license, registration, or
certification) in accordance with the requirements of his or her
medical specialty as identified under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b); and
(iv) Is not a VA-contracted employee.
(3) State. The term State means a State as defined in 38 U.S.C.
101(20), or a political subdivision of such a State.
(4) Telehealth. The term telehealth means the use of electronic
information or telecommunications technologies to support clinical
health care, patient and professional health-related education, public
health, and health administration.
(b) Health care provider's practice. (1) Health care providers may
provide telehealth services, within their scope of practice and in
accordance with privileges granted to them by the Department,
irrespective of the State or location within a State where the health
care provider or the beneficiary is physically located. Health care
providers' practice is subject to the limitations imposed by the
Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq., on the authority to
prescribe or administer controlled substances, as well as any other
limitations on the provision of VA care set forth in applicable Federal
law and policy. This section only grants health care providers the
ability to practice telehealth within the scope of their VA employment
and does not otherwise grant health care providers additional
authorities that go beyond the scope of the health care providers'
State license, registration, or certification.
(2) Situations where a health care provider's VA practice of
telehealth may be inconsistent with a State law or State license,
registration, or certification requirements related to telehealth
include when:
(i) The beneficiary and the health care provider are physically
located in different States during the episode of care;
(ii) The beneficiary is receiving services in a State other than
the health care provider's State of licensure, registration, or
certification;
(iii) The health care provider is delivering services in a State
other than the health care provider's State of licensure, registration,
or certification;
(iv) The health care provider is delivering services either on or
outside VA property;
(v) The beneficiary is receiving services while she or he is
located either on or outside VA property;
(vi) The beneficiary has or has not previously been assessed, in
person, by the health care provider; or
(vii) Other State requirements would prevent or impede the practice
of health care providers delivering telehealth to VA beneficiaries.
(c) Preemption of State law. To achieve important Federal
interests, including, but not limited to, the ability to provide the
same complete medical and hospital service to beneficiaries in all
States under 38 U.S.C. 7301, this section preempts conflicting State
laws relating to the practice of health care providers when such health
care providers are practicing telehealth within the scope of their VA
employment. Any State law, rule, regulation or requirement pursuant to
such law, is without any force or effect on, and State governments have
no legal authority to enforce them in relation to, this section or
decisions made by VA under this section.
[FR Doc. 2017-20951 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P