My computer, my doctor: A constitutional call for federal regulation of cybermedicine

American Journal of Law and Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 585-609

  Lewis, Carmen E ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INTERNET; LAW; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NOTE; PHYSICIAN; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE; TELECOMMUNICATION; TELEMEDICINE;

EID: 33846351559     PISSN: 00988588     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009885880603200403     Document Type: Note

References (222)

1. COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, NETWORKING HEALTH: PRESCRIPTIONS FOR THE INTERNET 2 (2000).
2. Daniel N. Gonzalez, Chiropractic Institutions Online: The Quality and Accessibility of Chiropractic Web Sites in the United States, J. AM. CHIROPRACTIC ASS'N, July 1, 2004, at 32, 32.
3. Id.
4. See COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD, supra note 1.
5. Gunther Eysenbach, Shopping Around the Internet Today and Tomorrow: Towards the Millennium of Cybermedicine, 319 Brit. Med. J. 1294, 1294 (1999).
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Kim Solez & Sheila Moriber Katz, Cybermedicine: Mainstream Medicine by 2020/Crossing Boundaries, 19 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 557, 557 (2001).
9. Ranjit Kr Samanta, Cyberhealth, STATESMAN, Mar. 1, 2005, available at 2005 WLNR 3128977.
10. Telemedicine Report to Congress Executive Summary, 73 N.D. L. REV. 131, 131-32 (1997).
11. Id.
12. Shira D. Weiner, Mouse-To-Mouse Resuscitation: Cybermedicine and the Need for Federal Regulation, 23 CARDOZO L. REV. 1107, 1112 (2002).
13. Id.
14. Eysenbach, supra note 5, Table 2.
15. Julie Reed, Cybermedicine: Defying and Redefining Patient Standards of Care, 37 IND. L. REV. 845, 851 (2004).
16. WARNER SLACK, CYBERMEDICINE: HOW COMPUTING EMPOWERS DOCTORS AND PATIENTS FOR BETTER HEALTH CARE XV (2001).
17. Reed, supra note 15.
18. Greg Gulick, E-Health and the Future of Medicine: The Economic, Legal, Regulatory, Cultural, And Organizational Obstacles, 12 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 351, 355 n.14 (2002).
19. Id. at 380.
20. Id.
21. SPECIAL COMM. ON PROF'L CONDUCT & ETHICS, FED'N OF STATE MED. BOARDS OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., MODEL GUIDELINES FOR THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE INTERNET IN MEDICAL PRACTICE 2 (2002), http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/2002_grpol_Use_of_Internet.pdf.
22. James M. Wood & Howard L. Dorfman, Dot.Com Medicine - Labeling in an Internet Age, 56 FOOD & DRUG L.J. 143, 144 (2001).
23. Eysenbach, supra note 5.
24. Gulick, supra note 18, at 404.
25. Weiner, supra note 12, at 1115-1116 ("Researchers have identified the existence of different degrees of risk that arise in the undertaking of medical practices on the Internet. The lowest level of risk arises with the dissemination of educational information and support services over the Internet. A moderate level of risk has been associated with telemedical consultations. Finally, a high risk to both the consumer and the provider is attributed to cybermedicine.").
26. U.S. CONST. amend. X.
27. The health care industry is one of the most regulated industries in the United States. As many as twelve federal and state government agencies are responsible for its regulation. Gulick, supra note 18, at 378. As far as state regulation goes, the two most effective regulatory mechanisms on medical professionals are profession-established licensure requirements and ethical standards.
28. See Patti Dobbins, Comment, Provision of Legal and Medical Services on the Internet: Licensure and Ethical Considerations, 3 N.C. J. L. & TECH. 353, 373 (2002). States regulate the licensure of medical professionals by establishing minimum competency requirements through examination and certification programs. See, e.g., State v. Call, 28 S.E. 517 (N.C. 1897) (citing Eastman v. State, 10 N.E. 97 (Ind. 1887); State v. Dent, 25 W. Va. 1 (1884)). In addition to this, each state's Medical Board evaluates individual physicians' professional conduct and, if need be, will impose such sanctions as license modification, suspension or revocation. Weiner, supra note 12, at 1130-1131. Furthermore, every state has its own Medical Practice Act defining that state's standard for unprofessional conduct; although these Acts vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Id. In addition to state medical boards and ethics laws, federal agencies regulate many facets of the health care industry, ranging from prosecuting health care fraud to enforcing national health care policies. Gulick, supra note 18, at 378-379. Among the federal agencies that play even a minor role in regulating the health care industry are the Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, the Department of Veteran's Affairs, the Administration on Aging, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Postal Inspection Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Office of Inspector General, the Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Justice. Id. This list, however, is non-exhaustive. Moreover, the health care industry regulates itself through the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Organizations, a private organization that indirectly regulates hospitals. Id. at 379.
29. Weiner, supra note 12, at 1136.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. Id.
35. Eysenbach, supra note 5.
36. Id.
37. Id.
38. Reed, supra note 15.
39. See id.
40. See id.
41. Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, Biography: Gunther Eysenbach, http://www.ehealthinnovation.org/user/91 (last visited Nov. 19, 2006).
42. Gunther Eysenbach, Clinical Review: Recent Advances - Consumer Health Informatics, 320 Brit. Med. J. 1713, 1713-1716 (2000).
43. Id.
44. Id.
45. Id.
46. Slack, supra, note 16.
47. Id. at xxi.
48. Id.
49. Id.
50. Id. at 13.
51. Id.
52. Id. at 14.
53. Id. at 10.
54. Id. at 21.
55. Id. at 48.
56. Id. at 22-23.
57. Id. at 25.
58. Id. at xxii.
59. Id.
60. Bernadine Healy, 2004: A Medical Odyssey, U.S. NEWS WEEKLY REV., Aug. 2, 2004, at 61.
61. Eysenbach, supra note 41, at 1713.
62. Id. at 1714.
63. Healy, supra note 59.
64. Id.
65. Eysenbach, supra note 5.
66. Id.
67. Id.
68. Wood & Dorfman, supra note 22.
69. Id.
70. Id.
71. Medline Plus Medical Dictionary, http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/ mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=clinical (last visited Nov. 19, 2006).
72. Id.
73. Slack, supra, note 16, at 5.
74. Reed, supra note 15.
75. Ronald Pies, Cybermedicine, 339 NEW ENG. J. MED. 638, 638-639 (1998).
76. John D. Blum, Internet Medicine and the Evolving Legal Status of The Physician-Patient Relationship, 24 J. LEGAL MED. 413, 419 (2003).
77. Id. at 422.
78. Id.
79. U.S. CONST. amend. X.
80. Kevin Outterson, Health Care, Technology and Federalism, 103 W. VA. L. REV. 503, 505-510 (2001).
81. Weiner, supra note 12, at 1130.
82. Id.
83. Id.
84. Id.
85. Id.
86. Id. at 1132.
87. See COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD, supra note 1.
88. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 311.550(17) (West 2005).
89. Id.
90. Id.
91. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 315.310-327.200 (West 2005).
92. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 205.510(5) (West 2005).
93. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 11.550 (West 2005).
94. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 205.559 (West 2005).
95. Id.
96. Id.
97. The statute states that "a health benefit plan shall not exclude a service from coverage solely because the service is provided through telehealth and not provided through a face-to-face consultation." KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 304.17A-138 (West 2005).
98. Id.
99. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 2290.5 (a)(1) (West 2003).
100. Id.
101. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 1375.1 (West 2000).
102. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 123149.5 (West 2006).
103. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 2290.5 (West 2003).
104. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 1374.13 (West 2000).
105. Id.
106. CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 14132.72(c)(1) (West 2001) (emphasis added).
107. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 2241.1 (2003) (emphasis added); Medical Board of California, Ordering prescriptions through the Internet? Buyer beware!, at http://www.medbd.ca. gov/Internet_Prescribing-Consumer.htm (last visited Nov. 19, 2006).
108. TEX. UTIL. CODE § 57.042(11)-(12) (Vernon 2006).
109. Id. at § 57.042(12).
110. Id. at § 57.042(11).
111. Id.
112. TEX. MED. ASS'N, TEXAS STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS POLICY STATEMENT ON INTERNET PRESCRIBING (2005), http://www.tsbme.state.tx.us/guidelines/ipp.htm.
113. TEX. UTIL. CODE § 57.042(13) (Vernon 2006).
114. Id.
115. Emily Ramshaw, Digital Doctors, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Aug. 15, 2004, at 3E.
116. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 487-557 (Vernon 2004).
117. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 531.0216 (Vernon 2006).
118. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 531.0216(c) (Vernon 2006).
119. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 531.0217(d) (Vernon 2006).
120. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 531.02175(b) (Vernon 2006).
121. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 531.0216(e) (Vernon 2006);
122. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 531.02161 (Vernon 2004).
123. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 531.02161 (Vernon 2004).
124. MINN. STAT. § 147-032 (2005).
125. MISS. CODE ANN. § 73-25-34 (2004).
126. MONT. CODE ANN. § 37-3-301 (2005).
127. N.M. STAT. § 61-6-11.1 (2003).
128. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 4731.296 (West 2003).
129. Id.
130. Id.
131. Id.
132. Id.
133. Id.
134. Id.
135. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
136. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 92 (1824) (Johnson, J., concurring).
137. Am. Libraries Ass'n v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
138. Jack L. Goldsmith & Alan O. Sykes, The Internet and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 110 YALE L.J. 785, 788 (2001).
139. Am. Libraries Ass'n, 969 F. Supp. at 175-176.
140. Id. at 169.
141. See James E. Gaylord, State Regulatory Jurisdiction and the Internet: Letting the Dormant Commerce Clause Lie, 52 VAND. L. REV. 1095 (1999).
142. Am. Libraries Ass'n, 969 F. Supp. at 169 (citing Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978)).
143. Oregon Waste Sys. v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality, 511 U.S. 93, 99 (1994).
144. Gaylord, supra note 139, at 1108 (quoting Oregon Waste Syst., 511 U.S. at 99)).
145. Id.
146. Id. (citing C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 392 (1994)).
147. Am. Libraries Ass'n, 969 F. Supp. at 169.
148. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970).
149. Gaylord, supra note 139, at 1108 n.89 (quoting Kassel v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662, 670 (1981)).
150. Id. at 1108 n.90 (quoting Kassel 450 U.S. at 670).
151. Goldsmith & Sykes, supra note 136, at 787.
152. Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989).
153. Id. at 338.
154. See Daniel R. Fischel, From Mite to CTS: State Anti-Takeover Statutes, the Williams Act, the Commerce Clause, and Insider Trading, 1987 SUP. CT. REV. 47, 88-90.
155. Goldsmith & Sykes, supra note 136, at 807.
156. Am. Libraries Ass'n, 969 F. Supp. at 175 (quoting Healy, 491 U.S. at 336).
157. Id. at 169.
158. Kenneth D. Bassinger, Dormant Commerce Clause Limits on State Regulation of the Internet: The Transportation Analogy, 32 GA. L. REV. 889, 898 (1998).
159. See Am. Libraries Ass'n, 969 F. Supp. at 169.
160. Id. at 170.
161. Id. at 169.
162. Id.
163. Id.
164. Id.
165. Am. Libraries Ass'n, 969 F. Supp. at 168-169.
166. Goldsmith & Sykes, supra note 136, at 787.
167. William Lee Biddle, Comment, State Regulation of the Internet: Where Does the Balance of Federalist Power Lie?, 37 CAL. W. L. REV. 161, 161 (2000).
168. Id. at 181.
169. Id. at 162.
170. See, e.g., State of Minnesota v. Barber 136 U.S. 313 (1890).
171. See, e.g., id.
172. Wendy E. Parmet, Regulation and Federalism: Legal Impediments to State Health Care Reform, 19 AM. J.L. & MED. 121, 125 (1993).
173. Id.
174. McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015 (2000). See also Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205, 217-18 (1979) ("The primary concern of Congress . . . was in enacting legislation that would ensure that the States would continue to have the ability to tax and regulate the business of insurance.").
175. Wendy Parmet, The Dormant Commerce Clause - A Returning Threat to State Health Laws, THE LAW & BIOETHICS REPORT, Spring 2004, at 6-7, available at http://www.louisville. edu/medschool/ibhpl/images/pdf/Lab%20Report%20spr04.pdf.
176. Id.
177. Id.
178. Id.
179. Id.
180. Id.
181. Id.
182. Lars Noah, Ambivalent Commitment to Federalism in Controlling the Practice of Medicine, 53 U. KAN. L. REV. 149, 170 (2004).
183. Id.
184. 7 U.S.C. § 950aaa (2000).
185. USDA Rural Development, Distance Learning & Telemedicine Program, http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/dlt/dlt.htm (last visited Nov. 19, 2006).
186. 7 C.F.R. § 1703.102 (2002).
187. Id.
188. 7 U.S.C. § 950aaa-2 (2000).
189. Id.
190. 7 C.F.R. § 1703.126 (2002).
191. 7 C.F.R. § 1703.121 (2002).
192. 7 C.F.R. § 1703.122(a) (2002).
193. 7 C.F.R. § 1703.107 (2002).
194. 7 C.F.R. § 1703.123(a) (2002).
195. 7 C.F.R. § 1703.111 (2002).
196. USDA Rural Development, Distance Learning & Telemedicine Program, DLT Success Stories - Montana, http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/dlt/dltsuccess_mt. htm.
197. USDA Rural Development, Distance Learning & Telemedicine Program, DLT Success Stories - Texas, http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/dlt/dltsuccess_tx.htm.
198. Id.
199. Id.
200. USDA Rural Development, Distance Learning & Telemedicine Program, DLT Success Stories - Alabama, http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/dlt/dltsuccess_al. htm.
201. Id.
202. Id.
203. USDA Rural Development, Distance Learning & Telemedicine Program, DLT Success Stories - Arkansas, http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/dlt/dltsuccess_ar. htm.
204. Id.
205. Id.
206. Id.
207. Id.
208. Id.
209. Id.
210. 42 U.S.C. § 254c-18 (2000).
211. Id.
212. Id.
213. Id.
214. H.R. 4726, 109th Cong. (2d Sess. 2006).
215. THE CTR. FOR TELEMEDICINE LAW, DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., TELEMEDICINE LICENSURE REPORT 11 (2003), ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/telehealth/licensure.pdf.
216. ROBERT J. WATERS, AMERICAN TELEMEDICINE ASSOCIATION, TELEHEALTH LICENSURE DEVELOPMENT, Slide 12 (2005), http://www.atmeda.org/ news/2005_presentations/m1b2.Waters.ppt.
217. See COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD, supra note 1.
218. Id. at 4-5.
219. SPECIAL COMM. ON PROF'L CONDUCT & ETHICS, supra note 21.
220. CONSUMER INFORMATICS: APPLICATIONS AND STRATEGIES IN CYBER HEALTH CARE 11 (Marion J. Ball & Rosemary Nelson eds., 2004).
221. Id. at 12.
222. See Kristine M. Crane, Telemedicine's Remote Control: Virtual Health Exams Cut Costs of Treating an Aging Population, WALL ST. J., Nov. 10, 2005, at B8.