Health Care Professionals Practicing Via Telehealth, 51625-51631 [2022-18033]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to
amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
part 71 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 10, 2021, and
effective September 15, 2021, is
amended as follows:
■
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
*
*
*
*
*
AGL MI E5 Menominee, MI [Amended]
Menominee Regional Airport, MI
(Lat. 45°07′36″ N, long. 87°38′17″ W)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile
radius of the Menominee Regional Airport.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 17,
2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group,
ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022–18016 Filed 8–22–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 17
RIN 2900–AQ59
Health Care Professionals Practicing
Via Telehealth
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its
medical regulations that govern the VA
health care professionals who practice
health care via telehealth. This
proposed rule would implement the
authorities of the VA MISSION Act of
2018 and the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 24, 2022.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Aug 22, 2022
Comments may be
submitted through
www.Regulations.gov. Comments
should indicate that they are submitted
in response to [‘‘RIN 2900–AQ59—
Health Care Professionals Practicing Via
Telehealth.’’] Comments received will
be available at regulations.gov for public
viewing, inspection or copies.
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: On June 6,
2018, section 151 of Public Law 115–
182, the John S. McCain III, Daniel K.
Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA
Maintaining Internal Systems and
Strengthening Integrated Outside
Networks Act of 2018, or the VA
MISSION Act of 2018, amended title 38
of the United States Code (U.S.C.) by
adding a new section 1730C, titled
Licensure of health care professionals
providing treatment via telemedicine.
On June 11, 2018, a final rule VA
published in May 2018, 83 FR 21897,
titled Authority of Health Care
Providers to Practice Telehealth (RIN
2900–AQ06), became effective; this
regulation, which established 38 CFR
17.417, grants VA health care providers
the ability to provide telehealth services
within their scope of practice,
functional statement, and/or in
accordance with privileges granted to
them by VA, in any location, within any
State, irrespective of the State or
location within a State where the health
care provider or the beneficiary is
physically located. Congress was aware
VA was promulgating this regulation
and sought to codify VA’s telehealth
authority through legislation. See H.R.
Rep. No. 115–671, Part I, at 13–14.
Congress passed the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
(2021 NDAA), which further amended
the definition of health care professional
by including post graduate health care
employees and health professions
trainees. See Public Law 116–283, sec.
9101, January 2, 2021. Given the
enactment of these laws, we are
updating our regulations to implement
the new statutory authority.
Section 1730C provides a definition of
covered health care professionals that
differs from the definition of health care
provider under § 17.417(a). We propose
this regulation to make these definitions
consistent. Section 1730C(b)(1)(A)
defines a covered health care
ADDRESSES:
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51625
professional to include those VA
employees appointed under 38 U.S.C.
7306, 7401, 7405, 7406, 7408 and title
5 of the U.S. Code. Section 17.417(a)
defined a health care provider as an
individual who 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). To maintain consistency between 38
U.S.C. 1730C and § 17.417, VA is
proposing to amend the definition of
health care provider to instead refer to
health care professionals. We would
also renumber the definition in § 17.417
for clarity. VA proposes to add in
§ 17.417(a)(2)(i) that a health care
professional would include those
individuals who are appointed under 38
U.S.C. 7306, 7401, 7405, 7406, 7408,
and title 5 of the U.S. Code.
VA is further proposing to amend the
definition of health care professional to
be consistent with section
1730C(b)(1)(C) in proposed
§ 17.417(a)(2)(ii) to state that VA health
care professionals would be required to
adhere to all standards for quality
relating to the provision of health care
in accordance with applicable VA
policies. We note that while the statute
uses the phrase provision of medicine,
we propose to use the phrase provision
of health care because we understand
these terms to be equivalent and
because the term health care is used
more frequently in VA’s regulations
than medicine.
Consistent with current § 17.417, we
would state in proposed
§ 17.417(a)(2)(iii) that VA-contracted
health care professionals remain
excluded from the definition of health
care professional. We maintain this
exclusion because contracted health
care professionals and community care
professionals are not appointed under
38 U.S.C. 7306, 7401, 7405, 7406, 7408,
or title 5, U.S. Code.
We would also state in proposed
§ 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(A) that the health care
professional is qualified to provide
health care based on having an active,
current, full, and unrestricted license,
registration, certification, or satisfy
another State requirement in a State to
practice the health care profession of the
health care professional. This language
is similar to the language in section
1730C(b)(1)(D)(i).
Proposed § 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(B) would
include those health care professions
listed under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b)(14) that,
although they may not be required to be
licensed, registered or certified in their
health care profession, may be required
to satisfy another State requirement in a
State that might limit them to practice
telehealth. This additional provision
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
51626
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
would recognize such qualifications as
prescribed by the Secretary for those
health care professions listed under 38
U.S.C. 7402(b)(14). This amendment is
consistent with section
1730C(b)(1)(D)(2). Additionally, the
proposed updates to the regulation are
permitted pursuant to three general
statutory provisions that permit VA to
authorize health care practices by health
care professionals at VA: 38 U.S.C. 303,
38 U.S.C. 7401, and 38 U.S.C.
7403(a)(1).
Proposed § 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(C) would
be consistent with section
1730C(b)(1)(B) and state that a health
care professional is an employee
otherwise authorized by the Secretary to
provide health care services.
The statutory authorities under 38
U.S.C. 303, 7401, and 7403(a)(1) also
permit the VA Secretary to authorize VA
health care professionals, including
health professions trainees, other health
care professionals, and those listed in
the proposed regulation, to engage in
telehealth. In addition, the William M.
(Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
amended section 1730C to expressly
identify such persons within its
statutory authority. We note that section
1730C uses the term postgraduate health
care employee. However, we would
instead use the term health care
professional to maintain consistency in
terminology with other regulations. See
§ 17.419. We would, therefore, state in
proposed § 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(D) that a
health care professional would also
include those individuals who are
under the clinical supervision of a
health care professional that meets the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(A)
through (C) of this section and is either
a health professions trainee or a health
care employee.
Health professions trainees work in an
apprenticeship model with VAemployed health care professionals as
part of their training programs and are
not required to have a license,
registration, certification, or other State
requirement. Health professions trainees
are appointed under 38 U.S.C. 7405 or
7406. Section 1730C(b)(3) authorizes
trainees to provide health care via
telehealth and as such, we would state
in § 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(D)(1) that such
trainee must be a health professions
trainee appointed under 38 U.S.C 7405
or 38 U.S.C 7406 participating in
clinical or research training under
supervision to satisfy program or degree
requirements.
Similarly, section 1730C(b)(2)
includes health care employees who are
appointed under title 5, U.S. Code, 38
U.S.C. 7401(1), (3), or 38 U.S.C. 7405 for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Aug 22, 2022
Jkt 256001
any category of personnel described in
38 U.S.C. 7401(1) or (3). Health care
employees must obtain full and
unrestricted licensure, registration, or
certification or meet the qualification
standards as defined by the Secretary
within the specified time frame. We
would state these requirements in
§ 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(D)(2).
We propose to amend § 17.417(b)(1)
for clarity. We would clarify the first
part of the first sentence of
§ 17.417(b)(1), which would now be
numbered as § 17.417(b)(1), by stating
that when a State law, license,
registration, certification, or other State
requirement is inconsistent with this
section, the health care professional is
required to abide by their Federal duties
and requirements. We would make this
clarification because without a broad,
clear statement about which standards a
health care professional should follow
when State requirements are
inconsistent with VA requirements for a
health care professional’s practice via
telehealth, such State requirements
would create ambiguity for VA health
care professionals, thereby delaying
telehealth service delivery, and
preventing VA from training and
overseeing VA health care professionals
based on a single, consistent standard.
This change would also be consistent
with the statute governing licensure
requirements of VA health care
professionals’ practice via telehealth.
See 38 U.S.C. 1730C(d)(1). One example
is if VA requires verbal consent for
telehealth but a State required written
consent, the VA health care professional
would only be required to obtain verbal
consent. Alternatively, if State law did
not require obtaining consent at all, but
VA policy required verbal consent, the
VA health care professional would still
be required to obtain verbal consent.
Another example is when a State has a
specific training requirement for a
health care professional for telehealth.
We note that VA has specific training
requirements for health care
professionals who practice via
telehealth that do not include each
State’s specific training or telehealth
requirements. The VA health care
professional must comply with VA’s
training requirement in order to practice
via VA’s telehealth program. In all
instances, VA policy would establish
requirements for quality and processes
that would be met in all cases, but VA
health care professionals would not be
required to take additional steps or
actions beyond those established in VA
policy to comply with State law
requirements.
We propose to add a new
§ 17.417(b)(2), which would restate the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
second part of the first sentence of
current § 17.417(b)(1). However, we
would clearly state that in order for the
health care professional to be covered
under this section, such professional
must be practicing within the scope of
their Federal duties. The provision of
telehealth outside of the scope of the
health care professional’s Federal duties
would not be covered by this
rulemaking. We would, therefore, state
in proposed § 17.417(b)(2) that VA
health care professionals may practice
their health care profession within the
scope of their Federal duties in any
State irrespective of the State or location
within a State where the health care
professional or the beneficiary is
physically located, if the health care
professional is using telehealth to
provide health care to a beneficiary.
We propose to add a new
§ 17.417(b)(3) to restate the second
sentence of current § 17.417(b)(1), but
would add that the practice is limited
by the Controlled Substances Act and its
implementing regulations. Proposed
§ 17.417(b)(3) would state that health
care professionals’ practice is subject to
the limitations imposed by the
Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.
801, et seq. and implementing
regulations at 21 CFR part 1300 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,
regulation, and policy.
Section 1730C provides VA’s
authority to establish the scope of
practice for health care professionals
who practice telehealth. Section
1730C(d)(1) provides that federal law
shall supersede any provisions of the
law of any State to the extent that such
provisions of State law are inconsistent
with it. States are, therefore, prevented
from interfering with the exercise of VA
duties by imposing requirements that
are inconsistent with federal duties and
requirements of health care
professionals who practice within the
scope of their VA employment. While
there is a general requirement that a
Federal employee be licensed,
registered, or certified by a State, a line
must be drawn between reasonable and
established rules of practice, which are
understood to be incorporated by
reference by Federal statutes requiring
Federal employees to carry licenses, and
rules that would penalize or otherwise
interfere with the performance of
authorized federal duties. See State Bar
Disciplinary Rules as Applied to Federal
Government Attorneys, 9 Op. O.L.C. 71,
72–73 (1985) (quotations omitted). A
State’s licensure laws or rules that
would prevent a VA health care
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
professional from engaging in telehealth
would fall into the latter category and
therefore could be preempted. Given our
statutory authority under section 1730C,
which supersedes any provisions of
State law to the extent that such
provision of State law are inconsistent
with a VA health care professional’s
practice via telehealth, we propose to
remove the last part of the last sentence
in § 17.417(b)(1).
We propose to add a new
§ 17.417(b)(4), which would restate
§ 17.417(b)(2) with changes described
herein. We are clarifying current
§ 17.417(b)(4)(iii) and (iv). The current
language is not clear as to where the
health care professional or the
beneficiary is located. Proposed
paragraph § 17.417(b)(4) (iii) would now
state the health care professional is
delivering services while the
professional is located in a State other
than the health care professional’s State
of licensure, registration, or
certification. Proposed § 17.417(b)(4)(iv)
would now state the health care
professional is delivering services while
the professional is either on or outside
VA property.
We propose to clarify current
§ 17.417(b)(2)(v) to be inclusive of all
beneficiaries. We note that all
beneficiaries do not identify as she or
he. We would, therefore, amend
§ 17.417(b)(2)(v) to state the beneficiary
is receiving services while the
beneficiary is located either on or
outside VA property.
Current § 17.417(b)(2)(vi) states that
situations where a health care provider’s
VA practice of telehealth may be
inconsistent with a State law, or State
license, registration, or certification, or
other requirement include when the
beneficiary has or has not previously
been assessed, in person, by the health
care provider. We propose to eliminate
the term ‘‘has’’ as it refers to having
been previously assessed in person.
Some States require that a patient be
first assessed in person prior to being
provided health care via telehealth.
Therefore, this part of the provision
would not be inconsistent with some
State requirements. Proposed
§ 17.417(b)(4)(vi) would only provide
for situations that would be inconsistent
with State law or State license,
registration, certification, or other
requirements related to telehealth,
which includes when the beneficiary
has not been previously assessed, in
person, by the health care professional.
The proposed change would also be
consistent with section 1730C(d)(1).
We propose to add a new
§ 17.417(b)(4)(vii), which would provide
another example of a situation where a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Aug 22, 2022
Jkt 256001
State license, registration, certification,
or other State requirement may be
inconsistent or conflict with VA policy.
One example would be where a
beneficiary has not provided VA with a
signed written consent in order to
receive health care via telehealth. This
example is added because some States
do not allow a health care professional
to provide telehealth services to a
beneficiary unless the beneficiary has
signed a written consent form. VA
regulations only require verbal consent
for the provision of telehealth.
Requiring signature consent would
disadvantage beneficiaries who do not
possess the technology or digital skills
to complete a remote signature consent
prior to their telehealth visits. This
provision would allow for the provision
of health care services via telehealth.
VA is already bound to informed
consent requirements under 38 U.S.C.
7331 as implemented by 38 CFR 17.32.
Section 17.32 of 38 CFR mandates that
all patient care furnished under title 38,
including health care services via
telehealth, shall be carried out with the
full and informed consent of the patient
or, in appropriate cases, a representative
thereof. That consent is not required to
be in writing except in the narrow
circumstances set forth in 38 CFR
17.32(d)(1). Thus, because 38 U.S.C.
7331 requires, in relevant part, that the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, prescribe
regulations to ensure, to the maximum
extent practicable, that all VA patient
care be carried out only with the full
and informed consent of the patient, or
in appropriate cases, a representative
thereof, and VA has implemented 38
CFR 17.32 establishing the standards for
obtaining informed consent from a
patient for a medical treatment or a
diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, we
assert that 38 CFR 17.32, combined with
38 U.S.C. 7331 categorically excludes
any State regulation of how VA health
care professionals go about obtaining
informed consent.
We would not restate current
§ 17.417(b)(2)(vii) because this
information is already captured in
proposed § 17.417(b)(1).
Finally, we propose to revise the list
of authorities cited for § 17.417 to
include section 1730C. We note that all
prior authorities cited by this regulation
would continue to apply and could
protect VA health care professionals
practicing telehealth in situations not
covered by section 1730C. For example,
section 1730C only protects VA health
care professionals providing treatment
to individuals under chapter 17 of title
38, U.S.C. VA provides treatment to
servicemembers and other beneficiaries
of the Department of Defense who are
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51627
not eligible for VA health care under
chapter 17 pursuant to sharing
agreements entered into under section
8111 in chapter 81 of title 38, U.S.C.
VA’s general authority on which its
original regulations were premised, 38
U.S.C. 303, 7401, and 7403(a)(1), would
continue to cover VA health care
professionals furnishing health care not
otherwise covered by section 1730C. We
propose to also include 38 U.S.C. 7306,
7405, 7406, and 7408. These new
authorities cover individuals who
would now be included as health care
professionals under the proposed
definition in § 17.417(a)(2). In addition,
we would also include 38 U.S.C. 7331,
which would cover the informed
consent as previously stated in this
rulemaking. The statutory authority for
§ 17.417 would now be 38 U.S.C. 1701
(note), 1709A, 1712A (note), 1722B,
1730C, 7301, 7306, 7330A, 7331, 7401–
7403, 7405, 7406, 7408.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 provides the
requirements for preemption of State
law when it is implicated in
rulemaking. Where a Federal statute
does not expressly preempt State law,
agencies shall 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 or there is
clear evidence to conclude that the
Congress intended the agency to have
the authority to preempt State law.
Through this rulemaking process, we
can preempt any State law or action that
conflicts with the exercise of Federal
duties in providing health care via
telehealth to VA beneficiaries.
In addition, any regulatory
preemption of State law must be
restricted to the minimum level
necessary to achieve the objectives of
the statute pursuant to the regulations
that are promulgated. In this
rulemaking, State licensure, registration,
and certification laws, rules,
regulations, or other State requirements
are preempted only to the extent such
State laws are inconsistent with the VA
health care professionals’ practicing
health care via telehealth while acting
within the scope of their VA
employment. VA also has statutory
authority under 38 U.S.C. 1730C to
preempt State law. Therefore, we
believe that the rulemaking is restricted
to the minimum level necessary to
achieve the objectives of the Federal
statute.
The Executive Order also requires an
agency that is publishing a regulation
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
51628
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
that preempts State law to follow certain
procedures. These procedures include:
the agency consult with, to the extent
practicable, the appropriate State and
local officials in an effort to avoid
conflicts between State law and
federally protected interests; and the
agency provide all affected State and
local officials notice and an opportunity
for appropriate participation in the
proceedings.
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. On August 21, 2019, VA
sent a letter to the following: National
Association of Boards of Pharmacy
(NABP), Association of State and
Provincial Psychology Boards, National
Governors Association, American
Academy of Physicians Assistants
(AAPA), National Council of State
Boards of Nursing (NCSBN), National
Association of State Directors of
Veterans Affairs, Association of Social
Work Boards (ASWB), and the
Federation of State Medical Boards to
state VA’s intent to amend the current
regulations that allow VA health care
professionals to practice telehealth.
We received 11 comments from the
State officials. We received three
comments fully supporting the rule. The
AAPA supported the objective of the
proposed amendment to ensure
qualified health care professionals,
including trainees, employed by VA,
provide veterans with the same high
level of care and access to care no
matter where a beneficiary or health
care provider is located at the time
health care is provided. AAPA also
appreciated VA proposing to modify the
telehealth regulation to add clarity so
that, in situations where VA rules
governing the practice of telehealth are
in conflict with State laws or State
license, registration, or certification
requirements, the health care
professional practicing telehealth at VA
is required to adhere to VA policy or
standards and is not at risk of losing
their State license. AAPA stated that it
supports the efforts VA is undertaking
to improve the delivery of care for our
nation’s veterans and stands ready to
assist VA in meeting its challenge to
provide veterans with timely access to
high quality medical care.
NABP supported expanding health
care delivery by means of telehealth,
specifically telepharmacy, and
recognizes that telehealth can provide
patients with quality health care that
they may not otherwise receive or have
difficulty accessing. The Model State
Pharmacy Act and Model Rules of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Aug 22, 2022
Jkt 256001
National Association of Boards of
Pharmacy (Model Act) provides model
regulatory language for NABP’s member
boards. Pursuant to the recommendation
of NABP’s Task Force on the Regulation
of Telepharmacy Practice, the Model
Act was amended to include the
practice of telepharmacy. The State
boards of pharmacy also recognize the
important benefits of telehealth services
to the public. According to information
provided to NABP from the State boards
of pharmacy, approximately 40 States
allow the practice of telepharmacy in
some manner. NABP stated that it
would communicate VA’s intention to
expand health care to veterans through
telemedicine, encourage the State
boards of pharmacy to review existing
pharmacy laws and rules for
hinderances to implementation of
telemedicine services to veterans, and
encourage the boards to make
amendments to State laws and rules to
facilitate telehealth access to veterans.
NABP stated that the practice of
telehealth, specifically telemedicine,
between a health care provider and a
veteran receiving care through the
Veterans Health Administration is not
typically subject to State regulatory
oversight. One scenario that NABP
wished to highlight is the legitimacy of
controlled substance (CS) prescriptions
that are issued by means of
telecommunications that do not involve
an initial face-to-face encounter for an
exam/assessment, but are otherwise
valid prescriptions under the Controlled
Substances Act. If a CS prescription is
issued via telemedicine without a faceto-face encounter and a veteran seeks
the services of a community pharmacy
to meet his or her immediate need, the
community pharmacists may not be
authorized to dispense the CS according
to certain State pharmacy laws.
Therefore, NABP stated it would
communicate to the State boards of
pharmacy about VA’s telehealth
initiative to help bridge the gap between
the need for health care and veterans’
access to it.
We received a comment from the
Association of State and Provincial
Psychology Boards (ASPPB). Based on a
review of the information shared within
the recent VA correspondences to
ASPPB and ASPPB’s knowledge of the
strong training programs that occur
throughout the nation under the
authority of the VA, the ASPPB stated
that they have no comments to refute
the proposed upcoming changes to VA
regulatory language on VA’s proposed
plans to amend its regulations to remove
barriers and accelerate access to
telehealth for veterans.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The other comments received were
mostly in favor of the rule, however, the
commenters expressed concern
surrounding the addition of trainees as
health care professionals who would be
allowed to practice telehealth within the
scope of their VA duties. The comments
are as follows:
The ASWB requested a clarification of
the definition of trainee. The ASWB
asked if the term trainee included social
work students in field placement only
or if trainees included master of social
work graduates under clinical
supervision working towards licensure.
The ASWB added that in both of these
scenarios, the trainees would be bound
to adhere to VA policies and procedures
in addition to school policies as
students and State policies while
working towards their State licensure.
The ASWB also stated that it requires a
licensed social worker to obtain a State
license in the State where the client is
located as well as the State where the
health care provider is located. The
ASWB understands that VA has secure,
advanced, and supervised telehealth
infrastructure in place that protects the
health care professional and client and
is able to provide support services while
the health care professional is practicing
in a VA medical facility. However, the
ASWB believes that this may not be the
case in circumstances where the health
care professional is practicing telehealth
outside a VA medical facility. Social
work regulators believe that by requiring
a social worker to obtain a license in
each jurisdiction where practice occurs,
the client is better protected. The ASWB
emphasized that jurisdictional boards
have the power to investigate any
complaints made against licensed social
workers employed in VA and that VA’s
full cooperation with the investigation
and enforcement related to licenses is
needed for true protection of the public.
In response to ASWB’s concerns, we
note that VA has the statutory authority
under 38 U.S.C. 1730C(d)(1) to preempt
any provisions of the law of any State
to the extent that such provisions of
State law are inconsistent with this
section. In addition, VA has already
established in 38 CFR 17.417 that 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. As such, VA has the
authority to allow social workers to
practice health care via telehealth. Also,
the qualifications of a VA social worker
are stated in 38 U.S.C. 7402(b)(9), which
include that the social worker must hold
a master’s degree in social work from a
college or university approved by the
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Secretary and be licensed or certified to
independently practice social work in a
State. With regards to social worker
trainees, VA never intended that these
trainees work without the supervision of
an otherwise licensed social worker.
The trainees will be supervised while
practicing health care via telehealth. We
appreciate the commenter’s recognition
of the quality of the VA telehealth
program and that VA maintains a
secure, advanced, and supervised
telehealth infrastructure irrespective of
the veterans or health care
professional’s location when delivering
VA.
The NCSBN expressed concern
regarding the expansion of telehealth
privileges to nurse assistants and other
assistive personnel as outlined in 38
U.S.C. 7401. Nurse assistants and other
assistive personnel do not have a
national governing body, leaving the
regulation of these occupations to the
individual States. The majority of States
do not license the occupation and have
widely inconsistent standards for
certification. There is no national
database for agencies to report
disciplinary actions for many assistive
personnel roles, creating a public
protection issue for these for patients
receiving care across State lines. NCBSN
provided the following example: if VA
fired a nurse assistant following an
interstate telehealth interaction, there is
no infrastructure by which those States
can communicate nationally to ensure
that appropriate disciplinary action is
taken against the provider’s licensure/
certification across the country.
Therefore, it would be possible that the
provider could continue to practice in a
different system and State without
suffering any consequences.
Additionally, NCSBN did not support
allowing unlicensed or pre-licensure
nurses to provide telehealth services as
would be allowable for temporary fulltime appointments under 38 U.S.C
7405. Boards of Nursing (BONs) do not
have authority to discipline prelicensure nurses, as they do not have an
active license. Furthermore, BONs are
unable to determine a nurse’s
competency without the completion and
passage of the National Council
Licensure Examination. Without a
license, a nurse cannot be held
accountable for a mistake by a BON,
because there is no means to report
them to a BON if an adverse event takes
place. This also means there is no
recourse for the patient if they are
harmed. By allowing pre-licensure
nurses to deliver telehealth services, VA
would be exposing patients and nurses
in the process of seeking licensure to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Aug 22, 2022
Jkt 256001
great risk. Further, NCSBN stated that
section 1730C(b)(1) defines a covered
health professional as not only an
employee of the Department appointed
under the authority under section 7306,
7405, 7406, or 7408 of this title or title
5, but also a health care professional
who has ‘‘an active, current, full and
unrestricted license, registration and
certification in a State to practice the
health care profession of the health care
professional.’’ NCSBN stated that while
38 U.S.C. 7405 includes unlicensed or
pre-licensure individuals, it believed
section 1730C explicitly states that in
order to practice telemedicine, a
provider must have an active license.
NCSBN stated its firm belief that nurses
should be fully licensed before
practicing to ensure that they provide
safe, competent care and retain the
public protection mechanisms that
allows VA to report disciplinary actions
to the appropriate State licensing
boards.
VA recognizes that 38 U.S.C.
1730C(b)(1)(D)(i) states that a covered
health care professional must have an
active, current, full, and unrestricted
license, registration, or certification in a
State to practice the health care
profession of the health care
professional. However, 38 U.S.C. 1730C
was updated by the 2021 NDAA and
section 1730C(b)(2) and (b)(3) now
includes those individuals who are
trainees and post graduate employees
appointed under 38 U.S.C. 7405 and
7406. In addition, VA requires
supervision of trainees pre-licensed
nurses by a qualified health care
professional who meet the requirement
of stated in section 1730C(b)(1). VA also
continuously monitors all health care
professionals, including trainees, and
has procedures in place to report any
adverse action to the appropriate State
licensing board.
VA received several comments
regarding trainees. The commenters
from the Virginia Board of Medicine,
Federation of State Medical Boards,
Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, and
the Wisconsin Medical Examining
Board stated that to ensure consistency
in the quality of care between veterans
and the general public, trainees should
not be allowed to practice telehealth
without supervision and that only such
trainees that possessed full and
unrestricted licenses should practice
health care via telehealth. The
commenters added that the care that is
provided by VA must be of the highest
quality, meaning from physicians who
have been trained to practice
independently, have proven their
knowledge, clinical acumen, and skills,
or, if not, are under the supervision of
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51629
another physician who has. A
commenter added that the proposed
rule to amend the definition of health
care provider to include trainees and
authorize trainees to provide health care
or telemedicine would mean that a
trainee could practice independently via
telemedicine or independently provide
other health care without supervision,
in violation of their license and with the
risks of providing less than optimal care
and potentially putting patients’ lives at
risk. They further stated that the
proposed rule fails to recognize not only
that States differ in qualifications to get
a training license but also that these
trainees differ in their knowledge and
capabilities. In addition, a commenter
argued that assigning a person with a
trainee license to provide telemedicine
or other health care is contrary to the
VA mission and core value of
excellence. Finally, they concluded that
expanding the definition of health care
provider to include trainees and
asserting that where State law is
inconsistent with VA practice the VA
standards will prevail or supersede
State law will promote lower standards
of care for veterans.
In response to the comments about
trainees and postgraduate employees
practicing independently through
telehealth, this rulemaking would not
allow these individuals to practice
without clinical supervision. In fact,
this rulemaking explicitly requires that
trainees and postgraduate employees
only participate in telehealth under
clinical supervision by an employee
who is licensed, registered, or certified
by a State, or under clinical supervision
by an employee who otherwise meets
qualifications as defined by the
Secretary.
To be covered by the authorization to
practice telehealth in 38 U.S.C.
1730C(b), a VA health care professional
must have an active, current, full, and
unrestricted license, registration, or
certification in a State to practice the
health care profession of the health care
professional or, with respect to a health
care profession listed under section
7402(b) of Title 38, have qualifications
for such profession as set forth by the
secretary. Trainees and postgraduate
employees are expressly authorized to
participate in telehealth in the 2021
NDAA updates to 38 U.S.C. 1730C, but
only under the supervision of one of
these health care professionals.
Additionally, the VA Secretary has
statutory authority independent of 38
U.S.C. 1730C to permit the
authorization of health care practices by
health care professionals at VA pursuant
to 38 U.S.C. 303, 501, and 7403.
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
51630
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Thus the VA Secretary has the
authority to authorize by regulation the
practice of telehealth by the VA health
care professionals listed in 38 U.S.C.
7401 and by VA health care professional
trainees appointed under 38 U.S.C. 7405
or 7406.
We also received a comment from the
National Board for Certification in
Occupational Therapy and another from
the Federation of State Boards of
Physical Therapy, however, these
comments were received outside the 30day comment period. These commenters
may submit a comment during the
rulemaking’s notice and comment
period. We received a response from the
National Association of State Directors
of Veterans Affairs, however, we
consider these comments outside the
scope of this rulemaking and do not
make any changes based on these
comments.
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).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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. The
provisions associated with this
rulemaking are not processed by any
other entities outside of VA. Therefore,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial
and final regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do
not apply.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563
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. The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory
Impact Analysis associated with this
rulemaking can be found as a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Aug 22, 2022
Jkt 256001
supporting document at
www.regulations.gov.
electronically as an official document of
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Unfunded Mandates
Consuela Benjamin,
Regulations Development Coordinator, Office
of Regulation Policy & Management, Office
of General Counsel, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
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.
Assistance Listing
The Assistance Listing 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
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.
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.
Signing Authority
Denis McDonough, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, approved this
document on July 21, 2022, and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Department of Veterans
Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part
17 as set forth below:
PART 17—MEDICAL
1. The authority citation for part 17 is
amended by revising the authority for
§ 17.417 to read 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,
1730C, 7301, 7306, 7330A, 7331, 7401–7403,
7405, 7406, 7408.
*
*
*
*
*
2. Amend § 17.417 by:
a. Revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a)(2) and (b); and
■ b. In paragraph (c), removing the term
‘‘health care providers’’’ and adding in
its place the term ‘‘health care
professionals’’ wherever it appears.
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 17.417 Health care professionals
practicing via telehealth.
(a) * * *
(2) Health care professional. The term
health care professional is an individual
who:
(i) Is appointed to an occupation in
the Veterans Health Administration that
is listed in or authorized under 38
U.S.C. 7306, 7401, 7405, 7406, or 7408,
or title 5 of the U.S. Code;
(ii) Is required to adhere to all
standards for quality relating to the
provision of health care in accordance
with applicable VA policies;
(iii) Is not a VA-contracted health care
professional; and
(iv) Is qualified to provide health care
as follows:
(A) Has an active, current, full, and
unrestricted license, registration,
certification, or satisfies another State
requirement in a State to practice the
health care profession of the health care
professional;
(B) Has other qualifications as
prescribed by the Secretary for one of
the health care professions listed under
38 U.S.C. 7402(b);
(C) Is an employee otherwise
authorized by the Secretary to provide
health care services; or
(D) Is under the clinical supervision
of a health care professional that meets
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the requirements of paragraph
(a)(2)(iv)(A)–(C) of this section and is
either:
(1) A health professions trainee
appointed under 38 U.S.C 7405 or 38
U.S.C 7406 participating in clinical or
research training under supervision to
satisfy program or degree requirements;
or
(2) A health care employee, appointed
under title 5, 38 U.S.C. 7401(1),(3), or 38
U.S.C 7405 for any category of
personnel described in 38 U.S.C.
7401(1),(3) who must obtain full and
unrestricted licensure, registration, or
certification or meet the qualification
standards as defined by the Secretary
within the specified time frame.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Health care professional’s practice
via telehealth. (1) When a State law,
license, registration, certification, or
other State requirement is inconsistent
with this section, the health care
professional is required to abide by their
federal duties and requirements. No
State shall deny or revoke the license,
registration, or certification of a covered
health care professional who otherwise
meets the qualifications of the State for
holding the license, registration, or
certification on the basis that the
covered health care professional has
engaged or intends to engage in activity
covered under this section.
(2) VA health care professionals may
practice their health care profession
within the scope of their federal duties
in any State irrespective of the State or
location within a State where the health
care professional or the beneficiary is
physically located, if the health care
professional is using telehealth to
provide health care to a beneficiary.
(3) Health care professionals’ practice
is subject to the limitations imposed by
the Controlled Substances Act, 21
U.S.C. 801, et seq. and implementing
regulations at 21 CFR 1300 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,
regulation, and policy.
(4) Examples of where a health care
professional’s VA practice of telehealth
may be inconsistent or conflict with a
State law or State license, registration,
or certification requirements related to
telehealth include when:
(i) The beneficiary and the health care
professional 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 professional’s State of licensure,
registration, or certification;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Aug 22, 2022
Jkt 256001
(iii) The health care professional is
delivering services while the
professional is located in a State other
than the health care professional’s State
of licensure, registration, or
certification;
(iv) The health care professional is
delivering services while the
professional is either on or outside VA
property;
(v) The beneficiary is receiving
services while the beneficiary is located
either on or outside VA property;
(vi) The beneficiary has not been
previously assessed, in person, by the
health care professional; or
(vii) The beneficiary has verbally
agreed to participate in telehealth but
has not provided VA with a signed
written consent.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2022–18033 Filed 8–22–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R4–OAR–2022–0226; FRL–10161–01–
R4]
Air Plan Approval; South Carolina;
Revisions To Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Rules
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of South
Carolina, through the South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on
November 4, 2016. This revision was
submitted by South Carolina in
response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy and SIP call published by
EPA on June 12, 2015, of provisions in
the South Carolina SIP related to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is
proposing approval of the SIP revision
and proposing to determine that the
revision corrects the deficiencies
identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call.
EPA is also proposing to approve
portions of multiple SIP revisions
previously submitted by SC DHEC on
October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, August
8, 2014, and August 12, 2015, as they
relate to the provisions identified in the
June 12, 2015, SIP call.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 22, 2022.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51631
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R4–
OAR–2022–0226 at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not
electronically submit any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information, the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit www.epa.gov/
dockets.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Estelle Bae, Air Permits Section, Air
Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air and Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Bae can be
reached by telephone at (404) 562–9143
or via electronic mail at bae.estelle@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Analysis of SIP Submissions
A. Regulation 61–62.1, Section II.L,
‘‘Emergency Provisions’’
B. Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 1,
Section I.C, ‘‘Visible Emissions’’
C. Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 4,
Section XI.D.4, ‘‘Total Reduced Sulfur
(TRS) Emissions of Kraft Pulp Mills’’
III. Proposed Actions
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background
On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a
Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) outlining EPA’s
policy at the time with respect to SIP
provisions related to periods of SSM.
EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP
provisions and explained how each one
either did or did not comply with the
Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51625-51631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18033]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 17
RIN 2900-AQ59
Health Care Professionals Practicing Via Telehealth
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its
medical regulations that govern the VA health care professionals who
practice health care via telehealth. This proposed rule would implement
the authorities of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 and the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through www.Regulations.gov.
Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to [``RIN
2900-AQ59--Health Care Professionals Practicing Via Telehealth.'']
Comments received will be available at regulations.gov for public
viewing, inspection or copies.
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.) [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6, 2018, section 151 of Public Law
115-182, the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson
VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside
Networks Act of 2018, or the VA MISSION Act of 2018, amended title 38
of the United States Code (U.S.C.) by adding a new section 1730C,
titled Licensure of health care professionals providing treatment via
telemedicine. On June 11, 2018, a final rule VA published in May 2018,
83 FR 21897, titled Authority of Health Care Providers to Practice
Telehealth (RIN 2900-AQ06), became effective; this regulation, which
established 38 CFR 17.417, grants VA health care providers the ability
to provide telehealth services within their scope of practice,
functional statement, and/or in accordance with privileges granted to
them by VA, in any location, within any State, irrespective of the
State or location within a State where the health care provider or the
beneficiary is physically located. Congress was aware VA was
promulgating this regulation and sought to codify VA's telehealth
authority through legislation. See H.R. Rep. No. 115-671, Part I, at
13-14. Congress passed the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (2021 NDAA), which further
amended the definition of health care professional by including post
graduate health care employees and health professions trainees. See
Public Law 116-283, sec. 9101, January 2, 2021. Given the enactment of
these laws, we are updating our regulations to implement the new
statutory authority.
Section 1730C provides a definition of covered health care
professionals that differs from the definition of health care provider
under Sec. 17.417(a). We propose this regulation to make these
definitions consistent. Section 1730C(b)(1)(A) defines a covered health
care professional to include those VA employees appointed under 38
U.S.C. 7306, 7401, 7405, 7406, 7408 and title 5 of the U.S. Code.
Section 17.417(a) defined a health care provider as an individual who
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). To
maintain consistency between 38 U.S.C. 1730C and Sec. 17.417, VA is
proposing to amend the definition of health care provider to instead
refer to health care professionals. We would also renumber the
definition in Sec. 17.417 for clarity. VA proposes to add in Sec.
17.417(a)(2)(i) that a health care professional would include those
individuals who are appointed under 38 U.S.C. 7306, 7401, 7405, 7406,
7408, and title 5 of the U.S. Code.
VA is further proposing to amend the definition of health care
professional to be consistent with section 1730C(b)(1)(C) in proposed
Sec. 17.417(a)(2)(ii) to state that VA health care professionals would
be required to adhere to all standards for quality relating to the
provision of health care in accordance with applicable VA policies. We
note that while the statute uses the phrase provision of medicine, we
propose to use the phrase provision of health care because we
understand these terms to be equivalent and because the term health
care is used more frequently in VA's regulations than medicine.
Consistent with current Sec. 17.417, we would state in proposed
Sec. 17.417(a)(2)(iii) that VA-contracted health care professionals
remain excluded from the definition of health care professional. We
maintain this exclusion because contracted health care professionals
and community care professionals are not appointed under 38 U.S.C.
7306, 7401, 7405, 7406, 7408, or title 5, U.S. Code.
We would also state in proposed Sec. 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(A) that the
health care professional is qualified to provide health care based on
having an active, current, full, and unrestricted license,
registration, certification, or satisfy another State requirement in a
State to practice the health care profession of the health care
professional. This language is similar to the language in section
1730C(b)(1)(D)(i).
Proposed Sec. 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(B) would include those health care
professions listed under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b)(14) that, although they may
not be required to be licensed, registered or certified in their health
care profession, may be required to satisfy another State requirement
in a State that might limit them to practice telehealth. This
additional provision
[[Page 51626]]
would recognize such qualifications as prescribed by the Secretary for
those health care professions listed under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b)(14). This
amendment is consistent with section 1730C(b)(1)(D)(2). Additionally,
the proposed updates to the regulation are permitted pursuant to three
general statutory provisions that permit VA to authorize health care
practices by health care professionals at VA: 38 U.S.C. 303, 38 U.S.C.
7401, and 38 U.S.C. 7403(a)(1).
Proposed Sec. 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(C) would be consistent with section
1730C(b)(1)(B) and state that a health care professional is an employee
otherwise authorized by the Secretary to provide health care services.
The statutory authorities under 38 U.S.C. 303, 7401, and 7403(a)(1)
also permit the VA Secretary to authorize VA health care professionals,
including health professions trainees, other health care professionals,
and those listed in the proposed regulation, to engage in telehealth.
In addition, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 amended section 1730C to
expressly identify such persons within its statutory authority. We note
that section 1730C uses the term postgraduate health care employee.
However, we would instead use the term health care professional to
maintain consistency in terminology with other regulations. See Sec.
17.419. We would, therefore, state in proposed Sec.
17.417(a)(2)(iv)(D) that a health care professional would also include
those individuals who are under the clinical supervision of a health
care professional that meets the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(2)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section and is either a health
professions trainee or a health care employee.
Health professions trainees work in an apprenticeship model with
VA-employed health care professionals as part of their training
programs and are not required to have a license, registration,
certification, or other State requirement. Health professions trainees
are appointed under 38 U.S.C. 7405 or 7406. Section 1730C(b)(3)
authorizes trainees to provide health care via telehealth and as such,
we would state in Sec. 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(D)(1) that such trainee must
be a health professions trainee appointed under 38 U.S.C 7405 or 38
U.S.C 7406 participating in clinical or research training under
supervision to satisfy program or degree requirements.
Similarly, section 1730C(b)(2) includes health care employees who
are appointed under title 5, U.S. Code, 38 U.S.C. 7401(1), (3), or 38
U.S.C. 7405 for any category of personnel described in 38 U.S.C.
7401(1) or (3). Health care employees must obtain full and unrestricted
licensure, registration, or certification or meet the qualification
standards as defined by the Secretary within the specified time frame.
We would state these requirements in Sec. 17.417(a)(2)(iv)(D)(2).
We propose to amend Sec. 17.417(b)(1) for clarity. We would
clarify the first part of the first sentence of Sec. 17.417(b)(1),
which would now be numbered as Sec. 17.417(b)(1), by stating that when
a State law, license, registration, certification, or other State
requirement is inconsistent with this section, the health care
professional is required to abide by their Federal duties and
requirements. We would make this clarification because without a broad,
clear statement about which standards a health care professional should
follow when State requirements are inconsistent with VA requirements
for a health care professional's practice via telehealth, such State
requirements would create ambiguity for VA health care professionals,
thereby delaying telehealth service delivery, and preventing VA from
training and overseeing VA health care professionals based on a single,
consistent standard. This change would also be consistent with the
statute governing licensure requirements of VA health care
professionals' practice via telehealth. See 38 U.S.C. 1730C(d)(1). One
example is if VA requires verbal consent for telehealth but a State
required written consent, the VA health care professional would only be
required to obtain verbal consent. Alternatively, if State law did not
require obtaining consent at all, but VA policy required verbal
consent, the VA health care professional would still be required to
obtain verbal consent. Another example is when a State has a specific
training requirement for a health care professional for telehealth. We
note that VA has specific training requirements for health care
professionals who practice via telehealth that do not include each
State's specific training or telehealth requirements. The VA health
care professional must comply with VA's training requirement in order
to practice via VA's telehealth program. In all instances, VA policy
would establish requirements for quality and processes that would be
met in all cases, but VA health care professionals would not be
required to take additional steps or actions beyond those established
in VA policy to comply with State law requirements.
We propose to add a new Sec. 17.417(b)(2), which would restate the
second part of the first sentence of current Sec. 17.417(b)(1).
However, we would clearly state that in order for the health care
professional to be covered under this section, such professional must
be practicing within the scope of their Federal duties. The provision
of telehealth outside of the scope of the health care professional's
Federal duties would not be covered by this rulemaking. We would,
therefore, state in proposed Sec. 17.417(b)(2) that VA health care
professionals may practice their health care profession within the
scope of their Federal duties in any State irrespective of the State or
location within a State where the health care professional or the
beneficiary is physically located, if the health care professional is
using telehealth to provide health care to a beneficiary.
We propose to add a new Sec. 17.417(b)(3) to restate the second
sentence of current Sec. 17.417(b)(1), but would add that the practice
is limited by the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing
regulations. Proposed Sec. 17.417(b)(3) would state that health care
professionals' practice is subject to the limitations imposed by the
Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq. and implementing
regulations at 21 CFR part 1300 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,
regulation, and policy.
Section 1730C provides VA's authority to establish the scope of
practice for health care professionals who practice telehealth. Section
1730C(d)(1) provides that federal law shall supersede any provisions of
the law of any State to the extent that such provisions of State law
are inconsistent with it. States are, therefore, prevented from
interfering with the exercise of VA duties by imposing requirements
that are inconsistent with federal duties and requirements of health
care professionals who practice within the scope of their VA
employment. While there is a general requirement that a Federal
employee be licensed, registered, or certified by a State, a line must
be drawn between reasonable and established rules of practice, which
are understood to be incorporated by reference by Federal statutes
requiring Federal employees to carry licenses, and rules that would
penalize or otherwise interfere with the performance of authorized
federal duties. See State Bar Disciplinary Rules as Applied to Federal
Government Attorneys, 9 Op. O.L.C. 71, 72-73 (1985) (quotations
omitted). A State's licensure laws or rules that would prevent a VA
health care
[[Page 51627]]
professional from engaging in telehealth would fall into the latter
category and therefore could be preempted. Given our statutory
authority under section 1730C, which supersedes any provisions of State
law to the extent that such provision of State law are inconsistent
with a VA health care professional's practice via telehealth, we
propose to remove the last part of the last sentence in Sec.
17.417(b)(1).
We propose to add a new Sec. 17.417(b)(4), which would restate
Sec. 17.417(b)(2) with changes described herein. We are clarifying
current Sec. 17.417(b)(4)(iii) and (iv). The current language is not
clear as to where the health care professional or the beneficiary is
located. Proposed paragraph Sec. 17.417(b)(4) (iii) would now state
the health care professional is delivering services while the
professional is located in a State other than the health care
professional's State of licensure, registration, or certification.
Proposed Sec. 17.417(b)(4)(iv) would now state the health care
professional is delivering services while the professional is either on
or outside VA property.
We propose to clarify current Sec. 17.417(b)(2)(v) to be inclusive
of all beneficiaries. We note that all beneficiaries do not identify as
she or he. We would, therefore, amend Sec. 17.417(b)(2)(v) to state
the beneficiary is receiving services while the beneficiary is located
either on or outside VA property.
Current Sec. 17.417(b)(2)(vi) states that situations where a
health care provider's VA practice of telehealth may be inconsistent
with a State law, or State license, registration, or certification, or
other requirement include when the beneficiary has or has not
previously been assessed, in person, by the health care provider. We
propose to eliminate the term ``has'' as it refers to having been
previously assessed in person. Some States require that a patient be
first assessed in person prior to being provided health care via
telehealth. Therefore, this part of the provision would not be
inconsistent with some State requirements. Proposed Sec.
17.417(b)(4)(vi) would only provide for situations that would be
inconsistent with State law or State license, registration,
certification, or other requirements related to telehealth, which
includes when the beneficiary has not been previously assessed, in
person, by the health care professional. The proposed change would also
be consistent with section 1730C(d)(1).
We propose to add a new Sec. 17.417(b)(4)(vii), which would
provide another example of a situation where a State license,
registration, certification, or other State requirement may be
inconsistent or conflict with VA policy. One example would be where a
beneficiary has not provided VA with a signed written consent in order
to receive health care via telehealth. This example is added because
some States do not allow a health care professional to provide
telehealth services to a beneficiary unless the beneficiary has signed
a written consent form. VA regulations only require verbal consent for
the provision of telehealth. Requiring signature consent would
disadvantage beneficiaries who do not possess the technology or digital
skills to complete a remote signature consent prior to their telehealth
visits. This provision would allow for the provision of health care
services via telehealth. VA is already bound to informed consent
requirements under 38 U.S.C. 7331 as implemented by 38 CFR 17.32.
Section 17.32 of 38 CFR mandates that all patient care furnished under
title 38, including health care services via telehealth, shall be
carried out with the full and informed consent of the patient or, in
appropriate cases, a representative thereof. That consent is not
required to be in writing except in the narrow circumstances set forth
in 38 CFR 17.32(d)(1). Thus, because 38 U.S.C. 7331 requires, in
relevant part, that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, prescribe
regulations to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that all VA
patient care be carried out only with the full and informed consent of
the patient, or in appropriate cases, a representative thereof, and VA
has implemented 38 CFR 17.32 establishing the standards for obtaining
informed consent from a patient for a medical treatment or a diagnostic
or therapeutic procedure, we assert that 38 CFR 17.32, combined with 38
U.S.C. 7331 categorically excludes any State regulation of how VA
health care professionals go about obtaining informed consent.
We would not restate current Sec. 17.417(b)(2)(vii) because this
information is already captured in proposed Sec. 17.417(b)(1).
Finally, we propose to revise the list of authorities cited for
Sec. 17.417 to include section 1730C. We note that all prior
authorities cited by this regulation would continue to apply and could
protect VA health care professionals practicing telehealth in
situations not covered by section 1730C. For example, section 1730C
only protects VA health care professionals providing treatment to
individuals under chapter 17 of title 38, U.S.C. VA provides treatment
to servicemembers and other beneficiaries of the Department of Defense
who are not eligible for VA health care under chapter 17 pursuant to
sharing agreements entered into under section 8111 in chapter 81 of
title 38, U.S.C. VA's general authority on which its original
regulations were premised, 38 U.S.C. 303, 7401, and 7403(a)(1), would
continue to cover VA health care professionals furnishing health care
not otherwise covered by section 1730C. We propose to also include 38
U.S.C. 7306, 7405, 7406, and 7408. These new authorities cover
individuals who would now be included as health care professionals
under the proposed definition in Sec. 17.417(a)(2). In addition, we
would also include 38 U.S.C. 7331, which would cover the informed
consent as previously stated in this rulemaking. The statutory
authority for Sec. 17.417 would now be 38 U.S.C. 1701 (note), 1709A,
1712A (note), 1722B, 1730C, 7301, 7306, 7330A, 7331, 7401-7403, 7405,
7406, 7408.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 provides the requirements for preemption of
State law when it is implicated in rulemaking. Where a Federal statute
does not expressly preempt State law, agencies shall 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 or there is clear evidence to conclude that the
Congress intended the agency to have the authority to preempt State
law. Through this rulemaking process, we can preempt any State law or
action that conflicts with the exercise of Federal duties in providing
health care via telehealth to VA beneficiaries.
In addition, any regulatory preemption of State law must be
restricted to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of
the statute pursuant to the regulations that are promulgated. In this
rulemaking, State licensure, registration, and certification laws,
rules, regulations, or other State requirements are preempted only to
the extent such State laws are inconsistent with the VA health care
professionals' practicing health care via telehealth while acting
within the scope of their VA employment. VA also has statutory
authority under 38 U.S.C. 1730C to preempt State law. Therefore, we
believe that the rulemaking is restricted to the minimum level
necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal statute.
The Executive Order also requires an agency that is publishing a
regulation
[[Page 51628]]
that preempts State law to follow certain procedures. These procedures
include: the agency consult with, to the extent practicable, the
appropriate State and local officials in an effort to avoid conflicts
between State law and federally protected interests; and the agency
provide all affected State and local officials notice and an
opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings.
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. On August 21,
2019, VA sent a letter to the following: National Association of Boards
of Pharmacy (NABP), Association of State and Provincial Psychology
Boards, National Governors Association, American Academy of Physicians
Assistants (AAPA), National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN),
National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs,
Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB), and the Federation of State
Medical Boards to state VA's intent to amend the current regulations
that allow VA health care professionals to practice telehealth.
We received 11 comments from the State officials. We received three
comments fully supporting the rule. The AAPA supported the objective of
the proposed amendment to ensure qualified health care professionals,
including trainees, employed by VA, provide veterans with the same high
level of care and access to care no matter where a beneficiary or
health care provider is located at the time health care is provided.
AAPA also appreciated VA proposing to modify the telehealth regulation
to add clarity so that, in situations where VA rules governing the
practice of telehealth are in conflict with State laws or State
license, registration, or certification requirements, the health care
professional practicing telehealth at VA is required to adhere to VA
policy or standards and is not at risk of losing their State license.
AAPA stated that it supports the efforts VA is undertaking to improve
the delivery of care for our nation's veterans and stands ready to
assist VA in meeting its challenge to provide veterans with timely
access to high quality medical care.
NABP supported expanding health care delivery by means of
telehealth, specifically telepharmacy, and recognizes that telehealth
can provide patients with quality health care that they may not
otherwise receive or have difficulty accessing. The Model State
Pharmacy Act and Model Rules of the National Association of Boards of
Pharmacy (Model Act) provides model regulatory language for NABP's
member boards. Pursuant to the recommendation of NABP's Task Force on
the Regulation of Telepharmacy Practice, the Model Act was amended to
include the practice of telepharmacy. The State boards of pharmacy also
recognize the important benefits of telehealth services to the public.
According to information provided to NABP from the State boards of
pharmacy, approximately 40 States allow the practice of telepharmacy in
some manner. NABP stated that it would communicate VA's intention to
expand health care to veterans through telemedicine, encourage the
State boards of pharmacy to review existing pharmacy laws and rules for
hinderances to implementation of telemedicine services to veterans, and
encourage the boards to make amendments to State laws and rules to
facilitate telehealth access to veterans. NABP stated that the practice
of telehealth, specifically telemedicine, between a health care
provider and a veteran receiving care through the Veterans Health
Administration is not typically subject to State regulatory oversight.
One scenario that NABP wished to highlight is the legitimacy of
controlled substance (CS) prescriptions that are issued by means of
telecommunications that do not involve an initial face-to-face
encounter for an exam/assessment, but are otherwise valid prescriptions
under the Controlled Substances Act. If a CS prescription is issued via
telemedicine without a face-to-face encounter and a veteran seeks the
services of a community pharmacy to meet his or her immediate need, the
community pharmacists may not be authorized to dispense the CS
according to certain State pharmacy laws. Therefore, NABP stated it
would communicate to the State boards of pharmacy about VA's telehealth
initiative to help bridge the gap between the need for health care and
veterans' access to it.
We received a comment from the Association of State and Provincial
Psychology Boards (ASPPB). Based on a review of the information shared
within the recent VA correspondences to ASPPB and ASPPB's knowledge of
the strong training programs that occur throughout the nation under the
authority of the VA, the ASPPB stated that they have no comments to
refute the proposed upcoming changes to VA regulatory language on VA's
proposed plans to amend its regulations to remove barriers and
accelerate access to telehealth for veterans.
The other comments received were mostly in favor of the rule,
however, the commenters expressed concern surrounding the addition of
trainees as health care professionals who would be allowed to practice
telehealth within the scope of their VA duties. The comments are as
follows:
The ASWB requested a clarification of the definition of trainee.
The ASWB asked if the term trainee included social work students in
field placement only or if trainees included master of social work
graduates under clinical supervision working towards licensure. The
ASWB added that in both of these scenarios, the trainees would be bound
to adhere to VA policies and procedures in addition to school policies
as students and State policies while working towards their State
licensure. The ASWB also stated that it requires a licensed social
worker to obtain a State license in the State where the client is
located as well as the State where the health care provider is located.
The ASWB understands that VA has secure, advanced, and supervised
telehealth infrastructure in place that protects the health care
professional and client and is able to provide support services while
the health care professional is practicing in a VA medical facility.
However, the ASWB believes that this may not be the case in
circumstances where the health care professional is practicing
telehealth outside a VA medical facility. Social work regulators
believe that by requiring a social worker to obtain a license in each
jurisdiction where practice occurs, the client is better protected. The
ASWB emphasized that jurisdictional boards have the power to
investigate any complaints made against licensed social workers
employed in VA and that VA's full cooperation with the investigation
and enforcement related to licenses is needed for true protection of
the public.
In response to ASWB's concerns, we note that VA has the statutory
authority under 38 U.S.C. 1730C(d)(1) to preempt any provisions of the
law of any State to the extent that such provisions of State law are
inconsistent with this section. In addition, VA has already established
in 38 CFR 17.417 that 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. As such, VA has the authority to allow social workers to
practice health care via telehealth. Also, the qualifications of a VA
social worker are stated in 38 U.S.C. 7402(b)(9), which include that
the social worker must hold a master's degree in social work from a
college or university approved by the
[[Page 51629]]
Secretary and be licensed or certified to independently practice social
work in a State. With regards to social worker trainees, VA never
intended that these trainees work without the supervision of an
otherwise licensed social worker. The trainees will be supervised while
practicing health care via telehealth. We appreciate the commenter's
recognition of the quality of the VA telehealth program and that VA
maintains a secure, advanced, and supervised telehealth infrastructure
irrespective of the veterans or health care professional's location
when delivering VA.
The NCSBN expressed concern regarding the expansion of telehealth
privileges to nurse assistants and other assistive personnel as
outlined in 38 U.S.C. 7401. Nurse assistants and other assistive
personnel do not have a national governing body, leaving the regulation
of these occupations to the individual States. The majority of States
do not license the occupation and have widely inconsistent standards
for certification. There is no national database for agencies to report
disciplinary actions for many assistive personnel roles, creating a
public protection issue for these for patients receiving care across
State lines. NCBSN provided the following example: if VA fired a nurse
assistant following an interstate telehealth interaction, there is no
infrastructure by which those States can communicate nationally to
ensure that appropriate disciplinary action is taken against the
provider's licensure/certification across the country. Therefore, it
would be possible that the provider could continue to practice in a
different system and State without suffering any consequences.
Additionally, NCSBN did not support allowing unlicensed or pre-
licensure nurses to provide telehealth services as would be allowable
for temporary full-time appointments under 38 U.S.C 7405. Boards of
Nursing (BONs) do not have authority to discipline pre-licensure
nurses, as they do not have an active license. Furthermore, BONs are
unable to determine a nurse's competency without the completion and
passage of the National Council Licensure Examination. Without a
license, a nurse cannot be held accountable for a mistake by a BON,
because there is no means to report them to a BON if an adverse event
takes place. This also means there is no recourse for the patient if
they are harmed. By allowing pre-licensure nurses to deliver telehealth
services, VA would be exposing patients and nurses in the process of
seeking licensure to great risk. Further, NCSBN stated that section
1730C(b)(1) defines a covered health professional as not only an
employee of the Department appointed under the authority under section
7306, 7405, 7406, or 7408 of this title or title 5, but also a health
care professional who has ``an active, current, full and unrestricted
license, registration and certification in a State to practice the
health care profession of the health care professional.'' NCSBN stated
that while 38 U.S.C. 7405 includes unlicensed or pre-licensure
individuals, it believed section 1730C explicitly states that in order
to practice telemedicine, a provider must have an active license. NCSBN
stated its firm belief that nurses should be fully licensed before
practicing to ensure that they provide safe, competent care and retain
the public protection mechanisms that allows VA to report disciplinary
actions to the appropriate State licensing boards.
VA recognizes that 38 U.S.C. 1730C(b)(1)(D)(i) states that a
covered health care professional must have an active, current, full,
and unrestricted license, registration, or certification in a State to
practice the health care profession of the health care professional.
However, 38 U.S.C. 1730C was updated by the 2021 NDAA and section
1730C(b)(2) and (b)(3) now includes those individuals who are trainees
and post graduate employees appointed under 38 U.S.C. 7405 and 7406. In
addition, VA requires supervision of trainees pre-licensed nurses by a
qualified health care professional who meet the requirement of stated
in section 1730C(b)(1). VA also continuously monitors all health care
professionals, including trainees, and has procedures in place to
report any adverse action to the appropriate State licensing board.
VA received several comments regarding trainees. The commenters
from the Virginia Board of Medicine, Federation of State Medical
Boards, Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, and the Wisconsin Medical
Examining Board stated that to ensure consistency in the quality of
care between veterans and the general public, trainees should not be
allowed to practice telehealth without supervision and that only such
trainees that possessed full and unrestricted licenses should practice
health care via telehealth. The commenters added that the care that is
provided by VA must be of the highest quality, meaning from physicians
who have been trained to practice independently, have proven their
knowledge, clinical acumen, and skills, or, if not, are under the
supervision of another physician who has. A commenter added that the
proposed rule to amend the definition of health care provider to
include trainees and authorize trainees to provide health care or
telemedicine would mean that a trainee could practice independently via
telemedicine or independently provide other health care without
supervision, in violation of their license and with the risks of
providing less than optimal care and potentially putting patients'
lives at risk. They further stated that the proposed rule fails to
recognize not only that States differ in qualifications to get a
training license but also that these trainees differ in their knowledge
and capabilities. In addition, a commenter argued that assigning a
person with a trainee license to provide telemedicine or other health
care is contrary to the VA mission and core value of excellence.
Finally, they concluded that expanding the definition of health care
provider to include trainees and asserting that where State law is
inconsistent with VA practice the VA standards will prevail or
supersede State law will promote lower standards of care for veterans.
In response to the comments about trainees and postgraduate
employees practicing independently through telehealth, this rulemaking
would not allow these individuals to practice without clinical
supervision. In fact, this rulemaking explicitly requires that trainees
and postgraduate employees only participate in telehealth under
clinical supervision by an employee who is licensed, registered, or
certified by a State, or under clinical supervision by an employee who
otherwise meets qualifications as defined by the Secretary.
To be covered by the authorization to practice telehealth in 38
U.S.C. 1730C(b), a VA health care professional must have an active,
current, full, and unrestricted license, registration, or certification
in a State to practice the health care profession of the health care
professional or, with respect to a health care profession listed under
section 7402(b) of Title 38, have qualifications for such profession as
set forth by the secretary. Trainees and postgraduate employees are
expressly authorized to participate in telehealth in the 2021 NDAA
updates to 38 U.S.C. 1730C, but only under the supervision of one of
these health care professionals.
Additionally, the VA Secretary has statutory authority independent
of 38 U.S.C. 1730C to permit the authorization of health care practices
by health care professionals at VA pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 303, 501, and
7403.
[[Page 51630]]
Thus the VA Secretary has the authority to authorize by regulation
the practice of telehealth by the VA health care professionals listed
in 38 U.S.C. 7401 and by VA health care professional trainees appointed
under 38 U.S.C. 7405 or 7406.
We also received a comment from the National Board for
Certification in Occupational Therapy and another from the Federation
of State Boards of Physical Therapy, however, these comments were
received outside the 30-day comment period. These commenters may submit
a comment during the rulemaking's notice and comment period. We
received a response from the National Association of State Directors of
Veterans Affairs, however, we consider these comments outside the scope
of this rulemaking and do not make any changes based on these comments.
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. The provisions associated with this rulemaking are not
processed by any other entities outside of VA. Therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563
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.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking
can be found as a supporting document at www.regulations.gov.
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.
Assistance Listing
The Assistance Listing 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 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.
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.
Signing Authority
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this
document on July 21, 2022, 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.
Consuela Benjamin,
Regulations Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy &
Management, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of
Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 17 as set forth below:
PART 17--MEDICAL
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 is amended by revising the
authority for Sec. 17.417 to read 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, 1730C, 7301, 7306, 7330A, 7331, 7401-7403,
7405, 7406, 7408.
* * * * *
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.417 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a)(2) and (b); and
0
b. In paragraph (c), removing the term ``health care providers''' and
adding in its place the term ``health care professionals'' wherever it
appears.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 17.417 Health care professionals practicing via telehealth.
(a) * * *
(2) Health care professional. The term health care professional is
an individual who:
(i) Is appointed to an occupation in the Veterans Health
Administration that is listed in or authorized under 38 U.S.C. 7306,
7401, 7405, 7406, or 7408, or title 5 of the U.S. Code;
(ii) Is required to adhere to all standards for quality relating to
the provision of health care in accordance with applicable VA policies;
(iii) Is not a VA-contracted health care professional; and
(iv) Is qualified to provide health care as follows:
(A) Has an active, current, full, and unrestricted license,
registration, certification, or satisfies another State requirement in
a State to practice the health care profession of the health care
professional;
(B) Has other qualifications as prescribed by the Secretary for one
of the health care professions listed under 38 U.S.C. 7402(b);
(C) Is an employee otherwise authorized by the Secretary to provide
health care services; or
(D) Is under the clinical supervision of a health care professional
that meets
[[Page 51631]]
the requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(A)-(C) of this section and is
either:
(1) A health professions trainee appointed under 38 U.S.C 7405 or
38 U.S.C 7406 participating in clinical or research training under
supervision to satisfy program or degree requirements; or
(2) A health care employee, appointed under title 5, 38 U.S.C.
7401(1),(3), or 38 U.S.C 7405 for any category of personnel described
in 38 U.S.C. 7401(1),(3) who must obtain full and unrestricted
licensure, registration, or certification or meet the qualification
standards as defined by the Secretary within the specified time frame.
* * * * *
(b) Health care professional's practice via telehealth. (1) When a
State law, license, registration, certification, or other State
requirement is inconsistent with this section, the health care
professional is required to abide by their federal duties and
requirements. No State shall deny or revoke the license, registration,
or certification of a covered health care professional who otherwise
meets the qualifications of the State for holding the license,
registration, or certification on the basis that the covered health
care professional has engaged or intends to engage in activity covered
under this section.
(2) VA health care professionals may practice their health care
profession within the scope of their federal duties in any State
irrespective of the State or location within a State where the health
care professional or the beneficiary is physically located, if the
health care professional is using telehealth to provide health care to
a beneficiary.
(3) Health care professionals' practice is subject to the
limitations imposed by the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801, et
seq. and implementing regulations at 21 CFR 1300 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, regulation, and policy.
(4) Examples of where a health care professional's VA practice of
telehealth may be inconsistent or conflict with a State law or State
license, registration, or certification requirements related to
telehealth include when:
(i) The beneficiary and the health care professional 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 professional's State of licensure, registration, or
certification;
(iii) The health care professional is delivering services while the
professional is located in a State other than the health care
professional's State of licensure, registration, or certification;
(iv) The health care professional is delivering services while the
professional is either on or outside VA property;
(v) The beneficiary is receiving services while the beneficiary is
located either on or outside VA property;
(vi) The beneficiary has not been previously assessed, in person,
by the health care professional; or
(vii) The beneficiary has verbally agreed to participate in
telehealth but has not provided VA with a signed written consent.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-18033 Filed 8-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P