"Fundamentally, the power to regulate the practice of the healing arts is vested in the state legislatures and constitutes a field of legislative control over which the federal government has no jurisdiction although the right to practice medicine is subordinate to the power of Congress to make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution provisions of the Federal Constitution." Amy G. Gore, 61 Am Jur 2d Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers § 10; see Linder v. U.S., 268 U.S. 5, 45 S. Ct. 446, 69 L. Ed. 819, 39 A.L.R. 229 (1925); Slocum v. City of Fredonia, 124 Kan. 853, 8 P.2d 332, 82 A.L.R. 1384 (1932); see also Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581, 47 S. Ct. 210, 71 L. Ed. 422, 5 Ohio L. Abs. 88, 49 A.L.R. 575 (1926).
Search for the "News" section of various advocacy groups and professional associations:
Legislative History
"The WHO global report on traditional and complementary medicine 2019 was developed to address the gap in reliable, credible and official data from Member States in the area of T&CM. This report reviews global progress in T&CM over the past two decades and is based on contributions from 179 WHO Member States." (https://www.who.int/health-topics/traditional-complementary-and-integrative-medicine#tab=tab_1)
HIPAA
"On January 25, 2013, HHS published a final rule entitled “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules.” (2013 Omnibus Rule). A portion of that rule was challenged in federal court, specifically provisions within 45 C.F.R. §164.524, that cover an individual’s access to protected health information. On January 23, 2020, a federal court vacated the “third-party directive” within the individual right of access “insofar as it expands the HITECH Act’s third-party directive beyond requests for a copy of an electronic health record with respect to [protected health information] of an individual . . . in an electronic format.” Additionally, the fee limitation set forth at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(c)(4) will apply only to an individual’s request for access to their own records, and does not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party.
The right of individuals to access their own records and the fee limitations that apply when exercising this right are undisturbed and remain in effect. OCR will continue to enforce the right of access provisions in 45 C.F.R. § 164.524 that are not restricted by the court order. A copy of the court order in Ciox Health, LLC v. Azar, et al., No. 18-cv-0040 (D.D.C. January 23, 2020), may be found at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv0040-51." (https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/court-order-right-of-access/index.html)
While this Libguide is designed to be legally informative, it was designed by a third-year law student. You should always consult with a licensed attorney before relying on any of the enclosed information.
