licensing

Subscribe to licensing via RSS

On January 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced a proposed rule to establish a special registration framework for prescribing controlled substance medications via telemedicine in the post-COVID era (the 2025 Proposed Rule).  The DEA  had, in an earlier proposed rule from March 2023 (the 2023 Proposed Rule), rejected the same framework as too burdensome for both prospective telemedicine providers and patients.

In its simplest form, the 2025 Proposed Rule seeks to impose separate special registrations with highlighted regulations on both clinician and platform practitioners who prescribe or dispense Schedule II-V narcotic and non-narcotic controlled substances via telemedicine without an in-person medical evaluation.  The rule is complex, more restrictive than the telemedicine flexibilities allowed during the COVID-19 era, and, more importantly, presents a significant departure from the regulations put forth in the 2023 Proposed Rule.

Considering the uncertainty surrounding the priorities and perspectives of the Trump administration regarding telemedicine prescribing of controlled substances, it remains unclear whether the 2025 Proposed Rule will be finalized as-is or if a different overhaul is forthcoming.Continue Reading What Does DEA’s Proposed Special Registration Framework for Tele-prescribing Controlled Substances Mean?

In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by four of the other conservatives, The Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization held that there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion, and that the decision to regulate abortion should be governed exclusively by state law. In doing so, the decision overruled The Supreme Court’s previous decisions of Roe v. Wade decided in 1973 and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey decided in 1992.

The Dobbs opinion tracks closely with the previous leaked draft opinion from The Supreme Court and includes concurring opinions from Justice Thomas, Justice Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice Roberts, as well as a dissent by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

The Chief Justice concurred in the judgment but wrote separately to indicate that he would have only upheld the Mississippi law, and stopped short of overturning the precedents of Roe and Casey.

Decision changes landscape of reproductive health care rights

The Court’s decision, which was effectively 6-3 given the Chief Justice’s concurrence in the judgment, changes the landscape of reproductive health care rights throughout the country.Continue Reading Supreme Court Overturns Roe and Casey

Now that U.S. Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the implications of that action will be far reaching both for fertility practices and for health care providers in general.

The Reed Smith Reproductive Health Working Group has generated a series of “unanswered questions” client updates to reflect the…