On June 7, 2018 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a new Memorandum that clarifies its view of Subject Matter Eligibility, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, regarding the patentability of Personalized Medicine discoveries.
The Memorandum was prompted by the Federal Circuit’s recent Vanda decision, where the Court provided its own insights as to the Subject Matter Eligibility of Personalized Medicine patent claims. [1] The claims in Vanda recited a method of treating a patient suffering from schizophrenia with the drug, iloperidone, and included specific steps, such as administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount guided by the genotype of the patient, which can predict the rate of drug metabolism. The Court summarized Vanda by stating: “The inventors recognized the relationships between iloperidone, CYP2D6 metabolism, and QTc prolongation, but that is not what they claimed. They claimed an application of that relationship.” Continue Reading Patent Office Guidance Improves Personalized Medicine’s Long-Term Prognosis
With the global telehealth market projected to more than quadruple in value over the next five years, even slow-moving government payors have responded to the pressure to expand reimbursement options for telemedicine services. But reimbursement woes continue to top the list of concerns voiced by providers, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) is keeping a watchful eye on reimbursement-related growing pains. On April 30, 2018, OIG 
The National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) recently held that a California hospital illegally maintained a dress code policy that effectively prohibited employees from wearing pins and badge reels with union insignia. The hospital’s policy at issue required that “[o]nly [employer] approved pins, badges, and professional certifications may be worn.” In addition, employees were only permitted to wear identification badge reels with “approved logos or text.” 
For those of you who may have lost hope regarding the patentability of personalized medicine discoveries, here’s some encouragement. Recently the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of a patent directed to a method of treating schizophrenia, which is based on genetic testing of the patient. Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int’l Ltd., Nos. 2016-2707, 2016-2708, 2018 WL 1770273, —F.3d — (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2018). The Court found that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 were patent eligible and not drawn to a law of nature under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 1 is representative and is shown below: 
On April 2, 2018, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed Senate Bill 18-082 into law. Senate Bill 18-082 amends Colorado’s non-compete statute, C.R.S. § 8-2-113, and curtails the ability of a former employer to enforce a non-compete agreement against a departing physician by seeking damages when the physician is treating patients who have “rare disorders.” The stated purpose of this law is to protect patients with rare disorders who would otherwise not have ready access to a physician with the necessary expertise to treat the disorder. 
Earlier this month, Uber released its new program, Uber Health. In a nutshell, Uber Health is a program that facilitates patient transportation to and from appointments with healthcare providers. This post expands on a 
In the last two months, the healthcare industry has seen both federal and state efforts to further regulate healthcare worker safety. Stakeholders and other jurisdictions are keeping an eye on these developments, which could spread to other states, as well.
The debate over providing transportation to patients is nothing new. Hospitals, doctors and other providers have long struggled with whether they can provide free or discounted taxis, shuttles, metro cards or other transportation means to patients to come to appointments and receive care. On one hand, there is evidence that without reliable transportation options, patients are more likely to miss preventative, primary care appointments, increasing the risk of more costly and unnecessary medical services down the road. On the other hand, certain federal laws like the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) law have given providers serious concerns that such transportation services might be considered an illegal “kickback” to gain patients, or an illegal inducement to receive care. 
The Austin City Council is scheduled to vote Thursday, February 15 on a proposed city ordinance which would require all private businesses in the city to offer employees at least 8 paid sick days (or 64 sick leave hours) annually.