The ACCESS Model tests whether a new payment methodology, Outcome Aligned Payments (OAPs) can better support technology-enabled care, improve health outcomes, and lower overall Medicare spending for high-prevalence, high-cost chronic conditions that affect more than two-thirds of people enrolled in Medicare.

The ACCESS Model will focus on chronic conditions including high blood pressure, diabetes, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and depression.

The United States just made its latest move regarding Medicare telehealth flexibilities, which expired on September 30, 2025.

On November 9, the Senate voted 60-40 to end the then-nearly 40-day U.S. government shutdown, hammering out a continuing resolution (CR) that would extend the telehealth flexibilities extended in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 through January 30, 2026. The House vote on November 12, 222-209, clinched the deal.

It’s a welcome development. A research brief updated on November 10, 2025, by the Center for Advancing Health Policy Through Research (CAHPR) and the Brown University School of Public Health reports that telemedicine visits declined by 24 percent in the first 17 days of October for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, and by 13 percent for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. This is compared to visits from the start of July to the end of September, when the U.S. government’s failure to extend Medicare telehealth coverage sent practitioners and patients alike over what is now commonly termed a telehealth policy “cliff.”

On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Rachel Snyder Good, Beth Scarola, and Laura DePonio sit down with Sheila Biggs, Vice President of Jarrard, to explore how women’s health is evolving from a niche focus into a mainstream industry priority. They discuss the forces accelerating growth, the opportunities for change, and the challenges that still need to be addressed across outcomes, access, and patient experience.

This episode unpacks several key topics, including:

• what “women’s health” really means today—far beyond fertility and reproductive care;
• how decades of underinvestment created new opportunities for innovation, equity, and growth;
• why investors and policymakers are turning their attention to this space, and what’s driving the momentum;
• the biggest gaps still to close in outcomes, access, and patient experience;
• how storytelling and strategy can help reshape the public narrative around women’s health; and
• where the industry is headed next—including insights related to the upcoming Women’s Health Innovation Summit.

Tune in to find out what’s driving unprecedented momentum across policy, investment, and innovation in the women’s health space.

CMS selected heart failure and low back pain because these chronic conditions represent roughly 6% of total, annual spend for traditional Medicare. The model is scheduled to run from 2027 through 2031 and represents an expansion of CMS’s strategy to integrate specialty care into its broader efforts to manage chronic disease and control Medicare spending.

CMS is accepting public comments on the proposal through September 12, 2025, offering stakeholders an opportunity to help shape the model’s design and implementation.

How have vaccine exemptions posed a significant risk to populations across the country? What are the long-lasting effects of the new administration's federal health agency funding cuts?

On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Richard Hughes, Spreeha Choudhury, and Will Walters, as well as Anna Larson of EBG Advisors, discuss vaccine-related topics ranging from the measles outbreak and the reduction of the federal workforce to decreased government funding of public health programs. 

Practitioners will, however, be allowed to continue prescribing via telemedicine without first having an in-person visit with the patient, owing to COVID-19 Telemedicine Flexibilities for Prescription of Controlled Medications, in effect through the same end-of-year date.

A seven-page document released by the Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DOJ, DEA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on March 24—further delays the effective dates of the “Expansion of Buprenorphine Treatment via Telemedicine Encounter” Final Rule and the “Continuity of Care for Veterans Affairs Patients” Final Rule, both dated January 17, 2025 .

The final rule delaying the effective dates of these final rules is scheduled for publication to the Federal Register on Wednesday, February 19, 2025.

The delays stem from the Presidential Memorandum titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” (the “Freeze Memo”) issued on January 20, 2025. The Freeze Memo orders all executive departments and agencies to “consider postponing” the effective dates of all rules published to the Federal Register that have not yet taken effect, such as the Buprenorphine and VA Telemedicine Prescribing Rules, until at least March 21, 2025 (sixty days from the issuance of the Freeze Memo), to allow review of any questions of fact, law, and/or policy raised by the rule, and to “consider opening” a comment period for stakeholders to comment on those questions. Accordingly, the DEA is also soliciting comments on: 1) the extension of the effective dates, 2) whether the effective dates should be further extended, and 3) questions of fact, law, and policy raised by these rules, for consideration by officials of the two agencies. Comments are due by February 28, 2025.

After publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in March 2023 on the prescribing of controlled substances via telemedicine that was widely criticized for being far more restrictive than temporary waivers then in place under the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) went back to the drawing board.

Additional time and a new year has brought renewed focus. Published January 17 in the Federal Register as one NPRM and two final rules (collectively referred to herein as the “DEA’s 2025 Rules”), the DEA’s 2025 Rules seek, as DEA indicates in its press release, to “focus[] on the patient to ensure telemedicine is accessible for medical care.”

Background

D.C.’s CON requirements were originally established in 1980 to ensure that access to health care services is available to all D.C. residents and to contain the costs of such health care services. D.C. regulators have more recently argued that D.C. was experiencing an overabundance of primary care providers, which has led regulators to apply the CON process in an overly broad manner to prevent a doctor on every block.^[1] The CON requirements have been applied in an inconsistent manner such that similarly situated providers may or may not have a CON depending on enforcement by regulators. Stakeholders within the D.C. community have contested the overly broad interpretation and enforcement of the CON law in D.C. and have argued that such interpretations are in fact creating provider shortages, increasing health care costs, and decreasing access to care.

In addition, the time and expense of complying with the CON requirements is enough of a barrier to potentially send independent physician practices across the border into Maryland and Virginia.^[2] Stakeholders have asserted that rather than decrease health care costs and increase access to care, the CON laws have had the opposite effect.

Lastly, the current requirements for institutional and physician providers to apply for a CON for even routine projects or activities is unnecessary and overly burdensome. For example, hospitals must wait months to a year following the CON process to get non-patient improvements like heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC). Furthermore, under the current interpretation by regulators, a physician group could subject itself to requiring a CON simply by hiring a non-owner physician or maintain a separate room to perform non-surgical procedures.

In full, the MDE Regulations and the accessibility standards they incorporate stand well in excess of 100 pages. To help our clients more readily understand what the MDE Regulations do and do not require, we are answering some of the most commonly asked questions here.

States are divided, with some passing laws that seek to restrict access to gender-affirming care and others aiming to protect access.

What is gender-affirming care? What risks does it pose to providers and patients? On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jenny Nelson Carney, Lisa Pierce Reisz, and Erin Sutton dissect gender-affirming care: what it is, what it isn't, and what is at stake for everyone involved.

In the wake of these changes, how can health plans, accountable care organizations, and other similar stakeholders successfully create and administer social determinants of health interventions as a means to advance health equity?

On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jackie Selby, Kevin Malone, and Marjorie Scher discuss the recent national focus on health equity, the actionable interventions behind the concept, and the responsibility of stakeholders in making care delivery more equitable.