Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Virtual Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates operational details for proposed virtual‑care and AI rules
Summary
The committee reviewed conceptual regulations to establish minimum standards for virtual care — including telehealth, data security, consent and AI usage — and requested clearer operational language about initial vs. subsequent visits, documentation, and emergency exceptions before advancing.
The Licensing Committee spent significant time on Dec. 5 refining a conceptual regulation to set minimum standards for ‘‘virtual care’’ — a term staff used to encompass telehealth, mobile apps and certain AI tools — and to clarify when a license is required for care delivered to a patient physically located in California.
Miss Walker described a draft that would require any person practicing chiropractic with a patient physically in California to be actively licensed by the board, to obtain verbal or written patient consent for virtual care, to take reasonable steps to secure data transmissions and to notify patients of breaches. She said the draft also clarifies that the same standard of care applies in virtual encounters as in-person practice and that disclosures about the use of AI/GenAI tools would be required.
Why it matters: The proposal addresses patient safety and privacy in a post‑COVID environment where remote care, apps and AI tools are increasingly used. Committee members repeatedly asked how the rules would be operationalized — for example whether informed consent must be obtained at each visit or only initially, what to require in documentation, and how to handle emergency encounters.
Operational questions: Several members recommended an initial documented consent with a simple confirmation on subsequent visits (for instance confirming patient location and ongoing consent), and suggested a 24‑hour window for documenting emergency virtual encounters. Members also urged staff to develop consumer‑facing templates and a one‑time virtual consent form with an option for updated consent when technology or AI use changes.
AI and scope issues: The committee discussed whether AI should have a separate consent pathway and how to ensure providers know when use of an app or EMR embedded AI brings them within the scope of the virtual‑care regulation. Staff said the draft intentionally broadened the definition of virtual care to include AI and GenAI but agreed it may be clearer to keep AI as a standalone provision or a clearly labeled subsection.
Next steps: Staff will refine language to specify that consent is required at the initial visit and that confirmations of location/consent may suffice for follow‑ups, develop sample consent templates and clearer plain‑language guidance for licensees and patients, and coordinate with other healing‑arts boards for operational examples.
