Digital healthcare in the United States encompasses a broad range of health-related products, tools and services distributed through technological solutions that improve mental and physical health and well-being. These technologies include the following.
Telehealth and Telemedicine
These are remote healthcare services that connect patients with providers via video, phone or messaging platforms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth became a cornerstone of healthcare delivery, with Medicare exemptions supporting wider adoption. Some of these changes have been made permanent, such as allowing federally qualified health centres (FQHCs) and rural health clinics (RHCs) to serve as distant site providers for behavioural/mental telehealth services.
Mobile Health
This includes health-promoting mobile tools, applications and wearables such as continuous glucose monitors, fitness apps, digital virtual assistants, natural language-processing tools, and behavioural health apps that support patient monitoring and engagement.
Electronic Patient Records
These are digital systems for storing and accessing patient health information, which facilitate care co-ordination and data sharing between providers. These systems support interoperability and seamless communication across healthcare entities.
Remote Patient Monitoring
This includes connected devices that track patient health metrics outside traditional healthcare settings, including wearables, implantables and ingestible sensors that collect and transmit health data. The Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) enables more personalised care, supports early detection of medical conditions, and improves overall patient outcomes.
These various forms differ primarily in their functionality, regulatory oversight and integration with broader healthcare systems. For example, while consumer health apps may not be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), software as a medical device (SaMD) must meet the agency’s definition and regulatory requirements.
Digital technology is extensively integrated into healthcare settings across the United States, with varying degrees of adoption based on geographic location, provider type and patient demographics. Key applications include the following.
Clinical Care Delivery
Healthcare providers increasingly rely on telehealth platforms for primary and specialty care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, regulatory changes facilitated broader adoption, with many exemptions now permanent or extended through 30 September 2025, including geographic restrictions removal and allowing audio-only services for certain conditions.
Hospital and Health System Operations
Electronic health records, workflow management, staffing software, decision-support systems and administrative tools enhance operational efficiency, disease prevention and community health initiatives.
Consumer Health Management
Wearable devices, health apps and patient portals enable individuals to monitor their health, connect with providers and access their medical information. Insurance companies have developed incentive-based digital health tools, offering premium discounts for healthy behaviours tracked through connected devices.
Preventative Care
Digital health technologies support early detection of health issues and ongoing monitoring of chronic conditions, reducing the burden of “lifestyle-related” illnesses through education and engagement.
Digital healthcare has become increasingly mainstream, accelerated by pandemic-driven adoption and regulatory flexibility. While urban areas typically have greater technology access, efforts to expand high-speed networks and 5G connectivity to rural, low-income and underserved areas in the United States aim to address geographic disparities in digital healthcare access.
Digital healthcare provides numerous advantages to patients, providers and the US healthcare system as a whole.
Improved Patient Experience and Outcomes
Digital healthcare enhances access to services, particularly for rural communities, homebound individuals and underserved populations. Telehealth eliminates transportation barriers and reduces wait times, while remote monitoring enables early intervention for deteriorating conditions. These technologies support personalised care delivery and foster greater patient engagement in health management.
Enhanced Clinical Decision-Making
AI and machine-learning tools assist providers with diagnostics, treatment planning and clinical workflows. These technologies can analyse large datasets to identify patterns, predict disease progression and recommend evidence-based interventions. Clinical decision support systems help reduce medical errors and standardise care protocols.
Operational Efficiency
Digital health solutions streamline administrative tasks, optimise resource allocation and automate routine processes. Electronic health records enable seamless information sharing across care settings, reducing duplication of services and enhancing co-ordination.
Data-Driven Insights
The aggregation and analysis of health data supports population health management, research initiatives and quality improvement efforts. These insights inform public health strategies and healthcare policy decisions.
Cost Impact
Digital healthcare has demonstrated potential for cost reduction through several mechanisms. For example, telehealth services often cost less than in-person visits, reducing overhead expenses. Remote monitoring can prevent costly hospitalisations through early intervention. Automated administrative functions decrease operational costs. Additionally, improved disease management and prevention reduce long-term healthcare expenditures associated with chronic conditions.
While implementation costs can be substantial, the long-term economic benefits of digital healthcare include reduced utilisation of expensive services, improved workforce productivity, and more efficient resource allocation across the healthcare system.
In the United States, there is no single or universal definition of digital health or digital healthcare. Federal and state legislation, regulations and enforcement agencies often provide specific definitions that conform to the discrete issues, services, conditions, solutions, tools and technologies addressed in particular legislative or jurisdictional contexts.
Generally speaking, “digital healthcare” is understood as a broad term covering various health-related products, tools and services distributed through technological solutions to improve mental and physical health and overall well-being. These range from consumer health and wellness apps not regulated by the FDA to digital treatments regulated as software as a medical device (SaMD).
More specific terms such as “digital medicine” and “digital therapeutics” refer to narrower categories of tools, solutions and processes that actively prevent, diagnose, treat or provide therapeutics to address specific diseases or conditions. These typically include products and services such as office visits, remote consultations, prescription drugs and surgical procedures that require direct involvement of providers and patients.
In contrast, technology solutions supporting healthcare operations, disease prevention, community health, infrastructure and administration that do not directly treat individual conditions generally fall under the broader digital healthcare framework.
Without a universal definition, stakeholders often rely on context-specific understandings within relevant regulatory schemes, industry standards and international frameworks, such as those developed by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF).
Key Regulatory Framework
The legal framework governing digital healthcare in the United States encompasses multiple federal and state laws and regulations addressing various aspects of technology use in healthcare settings, as follows.
Health information privacy and security:
Medical device and software regulation:
Telehealth and remote care delivery:
AI and machine learning (ML):
Reimbursement and payment
The complex patchwork of regulations creates compliance challenges, particularly for digital health solutions operating across state lines or addressing multiple aspects of healthcare delivery.
Policymakers in the United States employ several strategies to stay current with technological developments in healthcare and ensure appropriate regulation.
Regulatory Sandboxes and Innovation Pathways
The FDA’s Digital Health Center of Excellence provides regulatory advice on digital health policy, cybersecurity and AI/ML applications. The Digital Health Software Precertification Program pilots new approaches to regulate software-based medical devices.
Public-Private Partnerships
Government agencies collaborate with industry leaders and academic institutions to develop standards and best practices. For example, in 2023 the Biden administration secured voluntary commitments from major healthcare providers and payors regarding responsible AI use.
Stakeholder Engagement
Regulatory agencies conduct public workshops, request comments on proposed rules, and establish advisory committees with technology experts to inform policy development.
Flexible Guidance
Agencies issue non-binding guidance documents that can be updated more rapidly than formal regulations, allowing for responsiveness to evolving technologies.
Specialised Expertise
Regulatory bodies have established dedicated divisions focused on digital health technologies, recruiting staff with relevant technical backgrounds.
Legislative Reform
Congress periodically updates healthcare laws to address emerging technologies, as demonstrated by provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act that clarified the FDA’s authority over certain software functions.
Despite these efforts, regulatory frameworks often struggle to keep pace with rapid innovation. The pattern typically follows a reactive cycle: researchers develop new technologies, businesses commercialise these solutions, and regulators subsequently attempt to address potential risks and establish guardrails.
Technical standards play a crucial role in digital healthcare, providing frameworks that ensure safety, effectiveness, interoperability and security across technologies. Key aspects include the following.
Interoperability Standards
Standards organisations such as Health Level Seven International (HL7) develop frameworks such as Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) that enable different systems to exchange data seamlessly. The 2024 CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule requires implementation of FHIR-based APIs to support electronic prior authorisation and data exchange.
Medical Device Standards
The FDA recognises consensus standards developed by organisations such as ASTM International, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) that address medical device safety, performance and cybersecurity requirements.
Cybersecurity Frameworks
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has published numerous “800 Series” special publications on computer/information security and “1800 Series” cybersecurity practice guides providing comprehensive frameworks for protecting healthcare information systems.
Quality Management Systems
International standards such as ISO 13485 establish requirements for quality management systems in medical device development, including software as a medical device (SaMD).
Clinical Decision Support Standards
Organisations develop guidelines for the development, validation and implementation of AI and ML algorithms in healthcare applications.
These technical standards support regulatory compliance, guide industry development, establish minimum performance requirements and promote technological compatibility across healthcare systems. Standards are often incorporated by reference into regulations or used by regulatory bodies to assess whether products meet safety and effectiveness requirements.
Various aspects of digital healthcare are subject to specialised regulatory frameworks.
Software as a Medical Device (SaMD)
The FDA regulates software intended for medical purposes without being part of hardware medical devices based on risk classification (Class I, II or III). The agency’s Digital Health Center of Excellence provides guidance on SaMD policy, clinical studies and regulatory review. The 21st Century Cures Act excludes certain low-risk software functions from FDA regulation.
Self-Care, Wellness and Fitness IT Products
Consumer health applications and wearables generally fall outside FDA oversight unless they make specific medical claims. However, they must comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rules regarding advertising claims and state-level consumer protection and privacy laws. The My Health, My Data Act in Washington State exemplifies new protections for health-related data collected by non-HIPAA-covered entities.
Cybersecurity and Data Protection
HIPAA and the HITECH Act establish federal standards for protecting health information, requiring covered entities to implement administrative, physical and technical safeguards. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 added Section 524B to the FFDCA, requiring medical device manufacturers to include cybersecurity information in pre-market submissions. The HIPAA Breach Notification Rule mandates reporting procedures for data breaches affecting protected health information.
AI and ML
Regulatory oversight is evolving rapidly, with the FDA developing frameworks for managing adaptive ML algorithms based on quality systems, pre-market assessment, monitoring and transparency principles. In March 2024, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance on AI-driven tracking technologies, requiring compliance with HIPAA for use of protected health information.
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
Although the current administration is pressuring regulators and businesses to turn away from or minimise ESG efforts, digital health companies continue to face expectations regarding sustainability, equity and ethical governance. While not specifically regulated under healthcare laws, these considerations affect investment decisions, partnerships and reputational standing.
Telehealth
State licensing requirements traditionally limited cross-border practice, but the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (adopted by a majority of US states) has streamlined multi-state licensing. Medicare telehealth coverage expanded dramatically during COVID-19, with some provisions being made permanent while others remain temporary through September 2025. State telehealth parity laws often mandate insurance coverage for virtual visits comparable to in-person services.
These specialised frameworks continue to evolve as technologies advance and new challenges emerge in digital healthcare implementation.
The current legal and regulatory framework for digital healthcare in the United States presents a mixed picture, with significant gaps, despite substantial coverage in certain areas.
Areas of Relative Regulatory Sufficiency
These include:
Identified Regulatory Gaps
These include:
The fragmented nature of healthcare regulation in the United States creates particular challenges for digital health innovations that often operate across traditional boundaries. State-by-state variations in licensure, privacy laws and corporate practice of medicine doctrines further complicate compliance for digital health providers operating nationally.
Additionally, the rapid pace of technological innovation frequently outstrips regulatory frameworks. By the time regulations are developed and implemented, technologies may have evolved significantly, creating an ongoing cycle of regulatory catch-up.
Regulatory bodies have attempted to address these gaps through flexible guidance, enforcement discretion and regulatory sandboxes, though comprehensive legislative solutions remain elusive. Future regulatory development will likely require balancing innovation promotion with appropriate safeguards for patient safety, privacy and equitable access.
Several federal agencies share responsibility for regulating digital healthcare in the United States, with each focusing on specific aspects based on their statutory authority.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
This is the primary federal department responsible for enhancing the health and well-being of Americans and fostering advances in medicine, public health and social services.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Within the HHS, the FDA administers and enforces the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which governs medical devices, including software as a medical device (SaMD). The FDA’s Digital Health Center of Excellence provides specialised oversight of digital health technologies, focusing on patient safety, product efficacy and cybersecurity.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
This oversees Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and Health Insurance Marketplace programmes, establishing coverage and reimbursement policies for digital health services and technologies.
The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
This enforces HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules, ensuring that individuals can access and trust the privacy and security of their health information in digital formats.
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC)
This co-ordinates nationwide efforts to implement health information technology and promote the secure electronic exchange of health information.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
This produces evidence to make healthcare safer and more accessible, and works to ensure that evidence is understood and used.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
This provides leadership in disease prevention and public health emergency response, utilising digital health tools for population health monitoring.
These agencies frequently collaborate on digital health initiatives but may sometimes apply differing standards or priorities based on their specific missions. Their collective oversight aims to ensure that digital healthcare technologies are safe, effective and accessible, and protect patient privacy while enabling innovation.
Several non-healthcare regulatory bodies play important roles in overseeing aspects of digital healthcare.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
As the primary consumer protection agency, the FTC regulates health-related product advertising claims, privacy practices of non-HIPAA covered entities, and competition in digital health markets. For example, the FTC monitors health apps and devices to ensure that they do not make unsubstantiated medical claims and that developers, manufacturers and retailers follow truth-in-advertising principles.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
This oversees publicly traded digital health companies, ensuring accurate disclosure of business operations, risks and financial performance to investors. Digital health start-ups seeking investment must comply with securities regulations.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
This regulates telecommunications aspects of telehealth, including broadband infrastructure essential for remote care delivery. The FCC’s Connected Care Pilot Program supports telehealth for low-income patients and veterans.
The Department of Justice (DOJ)
This enforces antitrust laws in healthcare markets, increasingly scrutinising mergers and acquisitions in digital health. The DOJ also prosecutes criminal violations of HIPAA and fraud in telehealth billing.
State Attorneys General
These enforce state consumer protection, data privacy and antitrust laws that affect digital health companies. State attorneys general are increasingly active in addressing health data privacy concerns, exemplified by Washington State’s My Health, My Data Act.
State Medical and Professional Licensing Boards
These establish and enforce standards for telehealth practice, remote prescribing and professional conduct in virtual care environments.
These entities exercise jurisdiction over digital healthcare because many aspects extend beyond traditional healthcare regulation into areas such as consumer protection, telecommunications, securities regulation and professional licensure. Their involvement reflects the increasingly complex regulatory landscape as healthcare adopts digital technologies that intersect with multiple domains of economic and social activity.
Regulatory authorities enforce digital healthcare laws and regulations through various mechanisms, with enforcement intensity varying across domains.
FDA Enforcement
The FDA employs a risk-based approach to enforcement, focusing on products that pose the greatest potential harm to patients. Enforcement actions include warning letters, product recalls, injunctions and civil penalties. The agency has increased scrutiny of software as a medical device (SaMD), particularly those making diagnostic or treatment claims without proper authorisation.
HIPAA/Privacy Enforcement
The HHS OCR enforces HIPAA violations through civil monetary penalties and corrective action plans. Common violations include unpermitted use/disclosure of protected health information (PHI), inadequate safeguards and failure to provide patient access to their information. OCR investigations often follow data breaches affecting 500 or more individuals, which must be reported promptly under the Breach Notification Rule.
FTC Enforcement
The FTC targets deceptive advertising claims and unfair privacy practices in digital health, typically resulting in consent decrees requiring companies to implement comprehensive privacy programmes and undergo regular assessments.
Medicare Fraud Enforcement
The CMS and the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) have increased scrutiny of telehealth billing practices. In April 2023, HHS-OIG issued a toolkit for identifying telehealth fraud and improper payments, focusing on high-risk billing patterns.
State-Level Enforcement
State attorneys general increasingly enforce data privacy laws and consumer protection statutes against digital health companies, particularly concerning sensitive health information collected outside HIPAA’s scope.
Areas subject to stricter enforcement include:
Enforcement intensity has increased as digital health adoption has expanded, with regulators adapting traditional enforcement mechanisms to address novel challenges presented by emerging technologies while attempting to balance innovation promotion with consumer protection.
The current regulatory framework for digital healthcare offers significant strengths as well as limitations in addressing emerging risks.
Current strengths include:
Notable limitations include the following:
Proposed enhancements include:
Several reform initiatives are under consideration, including:
The sufficiency of oversight varies significantly across digital healthcare domains. While traditional medical devices have well-established regulatory pathways, newer technologies such as AI diagnostics and consumer health platforms operate in areas where regulatory frameworks are still evolving. Striking the appropriate balance between enabling innovation and ensuring adequate protection remains an ongoing challenge for regulators.
Digital healthcare presents numerous legal risks and challenges across several domains.
Non-compliance with regulations includes:
Enforcement by regulatory authorities includes:
Liability risks include:
The interconnected nature of digital health technologies often creates complex liability scenarios involving multiple parties. For example, a telehealth consultation that results in patient harm might implicate the treating physician, the telehealth platform provider, the health system, and potentially the developers of any clinical decision support software used during the encounter.
Additionally, as AI and ML play increasingly prominent roles in clinical decision-making, questions of liability attribution become more complicated. When algorithms influence or drive medical decisions, determining responsibility for adverse outcomes presents novel legal challenges not fully addressed in existing liability frameworks.
The legal exposures associated with digital healthcare are addressed through multiple liability frameworks.
Statutory frameworks include the following:
Tort liability includes the following:
Contractual liability includes the following:
Formal redress mechanisms include:
The applicability of these frameworks varies based on the specific digital health application, the parties involved and the nature of the harm. Certain digital health innovations operate in regulatory gray areas where existing liability frameworks must be adapted or extended to address novel circumstances. This creates uncertainty for providers and patients regarding rights, responsibilities and available remedies when issues arise.
Several mechanisms exist to mitigate or defend against liability exposures in digital healthcare.
Regulatory compliance defences include:
Risk-management strategies include:
Contractual protections include:
Insurance coverage includes:
Affirmative defences include:
Successful defence strategies typically combine multiple approaches, emphasising both technical compliance and process excellence. Organisations often develop comprehensive risk management frameworks that integrate legal compliance, technical safeguards and clinical governance to address the multifaceted nature of digital health risks.
The evolving regulatory landscape requires continuous monitoring and adaptation of defence strategies. As new technologies such as AI and ML become more prevalent in healthcare, defence approaches must address novel liability scenarios not fully contemplated in existing frameworks.
Several significant developments are reshaping the digital healthcare regulatory landscape.
AI Governance
The rapid advancement of AI in healthcare has prompted increased regulatory attention. In March 2024, the HHS issued updated guidance on AI-driven tracking technologies such as Google Analytics and Meta Pixel, emphasising HIPAA compliance requirements. State-level initiatives, such as California’s investigation into algorithmic discrimination in healthcare, signal growing scrutiny of AI fairness and transparency.
Expanded Data Privacy Frameworks
Beyond traditional HIPAA protections, comprehensive state privacy laws are increasingly addressing health-related information. Washington State’s My Health, My Data Act exemplifies this trend, establishing consent requirements and private rights of action for health data collected outside HIPAA’s scope. More than a dozen states have enacted consumer privacy laws, with almost two dozen considering similar legislation.
Telehealth Permanence
As pandemic-era telehealth waivers transition to permanent policies, new regulatory frameworks are emerging. CMS has made certain Medicare telehealth provisions permanent, while others remain temporary through September 2025. This phased approach creates both opportunities and compliance challenges as organisations adapt to evolving reimbursement requirements.
Digital Therapeutics Classification
Regulatory agencies are developing frameworks to address prescription digital therapeutics (PDTs) – software-based interventions that prevent, manage or treat medical conditions. These novel products challenge traditional regulatory categories, prompting discussions about appropriate oversight mechanisms and reimbursement pathways.
Cybersecurity Requirements
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 amended the FFDCA to require cybersecurity information in pre-market submissions for “cyber devices”. This marks a shift towards more explicit regulatory attention to security vulnerabilities in connected health technologies.
Non-Traditional Healthcare Entrants
The entrance of major retailers and technology companies into healthcare delivery raises questions about corporate practice of medicine restrictions, data privacy protections and regulatory oversight. Companies such as Amazon, CVS and Walgreens are expanding primary care, pharmacy and telehealth services, challenging traditional healthcare models.
Interoperability Mandates
The CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule, issued in January 2024, requires implementation of FHIR-based APIs to streamline health information exchange. These requirements represent significant regulatory efforts to address fragmentation in health information systems.
These emerging issues reflect the increasing complexity of digital healthcare regulation as technologies evolve and cross traditional boundaries between healthcare, consumer products and information services.
Several significant legislative and regulatory reforms are reshaping the digital healthcare landscape, driven by policy objectives including expanded access, enhanced privacy protections, improved interoperability and appropriate oversight of emerging technologies.
Telehealth expansion initiatives include the following:
Privacy and data protection includes the following:
Interoperability advancement includes the following:
AI governance includes the following:
Cybersecurity enhancement includes the following:
These reforms collectively seek to balance innovation promotion with appropriate safeguards for patient safety, privacy and equity. Policy drivers include:
The reform landscape reflects an evolving understanding that digital healthcare requires regulatory frameworks that can accommodate rapid technological change while maintaining fundamental protections for patients and healthcare systems.
Jones Walker LLP
201 St. Charles Ave
New Orleans
LA 70170-5100
USA
+1 504 582 8000
+1 504 582 8583
ndelahoussaye@joneswalker.com www.joneswalker.comDigital Healthcare in the United States: Navigating a Changing Regulatory and Funding Landscape
Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic first captured headlines, affected billions of lives, led to a global prevention effort, and, in the United States in particular, led to a rapid expansion of telemedicine as a primary method for care delivery, the digital healthcare landscape has come to reflect the broader state of the nation: unsettled.
Until recently, the lessons of COVID-19 were most clearly evident in the approach of US federal and state officials towards the emergence of other infectious diseases (such as mpox) and in the accelerated adoption of digital health solutions. Disease tracking and prevention strategies were – and in many cases still are – being developed and implemented at a rapid pace. Among other beneficiaries, rural and under-served populations have been positively affected as a result of the loosening of federal and state restrictions on telehealth, physician licensure and other rules that often served as barriers to the delivery of modern healthcare.
While many of these changes persist and others are moving forward, rapid shifts in executive-branch funding and compliance priorities at the federal level have created a more complex and unpredictable environment. Budget and staffing cuts, both proposed and implemented, are beginning to impact the resources available to research, develop and deploy digital healthcare initiatives. Virtually every organisation – from government agencies to academic medical centres, research-focused universities, private enterprises, investors, front-line hospitals, health systems and individual practitioners – is now facing the challenge of making long-term decisions in the face of significant short-term uncertainty.
In the current economic and political climate, every stakeholder is being required to recalculate the resources, money and attention available to pursue their unique missions. With regard to digital health and telemedicine, it appears that many of the lessons learned during the pandemic will endure. However, the clock is ticking on some advancements, and, in the case of many temporary pandemic-era waivers, their expiry dates have been extended only through 30 September 2025.
Despite this uncertainty, digital health solutions continue to play a major role in providing cost-effective, high-quality healthcare to Americans across the country and from all backgrounds. In this respect, at least, the trend in the United States remains consistent with the broader global commitment to digital health. For example, the World Health Organization’s Global Initiative on Digital Health (GIDH), formally launched in February 2024, continues to work towards country-led digital health transformation through strengthened collaboration and knowledge exchange. In its March 2025 Global Digital Health Monitor: State of Digital Health 2024 Brief, the organisation noted that of 47 non-US countries that completed survey submissions:
In the United States, federal and state lawmakers and agency officials are continuing their efforts to balance innovation with regulation in the digital health space. However, given the recent shifts in the administration’s enforcement and funding priorities – which have yet to play out fully – this review of the state of the US digital health space may also be subject to change.
Licensure: New Challenges to an Old System
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, most states had strict limitations on the licensing of healthcare professionals to practise telemedicine within their borders. Pandemic-era waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) allowed for significant flexibility in telemedicine licensing requirements, though many of these waivers have only been extended through 30 September 2025.
The Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC), which became operational in 2017 – in part as a result of the growth of telemedicine – continues to serve as an agreement among 40 states, the District of Columbia and the Territory of Guam. In these jurisdictions, physicians are licensed by 52 different medical and osteopathic boards. (Note that Michigan’s participation in the compact was repealed on 28 March 2025, and will go into effect 12 months from that date.) The compact enables physicians to qualify to practice medicine in multiple states by completing just one application. Similar licensing compacts have gained momentum for audiologists, speech pathologists, occupational therapists and mental health counsellors.
While the compact streamlines the application process, it does not eliminate the costs associated with obtaining and maintaining multiple state licences. Physicians must still pay between USD300 and USD700 for each state licence, which represents a significant financial burden for providers practising telemedicine at the national level. This is particularly challenging as federal reimbursement rates decline and healthcare system administrative costs increase.
In December 2023, a lawsuit (Shannon MacDonald, MD, et al v Otto Sabando) was filed in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs argue that New Jersey licensure laws unfairly restrict the practice of specialised medicine across state lines. Although the case remains in its initial stages, the legal theories involved, including violations of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments, have the potential, if successful, to reform state licensure law across the country.
As state legislative and regulatory bodies grapple with these issues, providers must maintain vigilance in their compliance efforts, carefully tracking the evolving requirements on a state-by-state basis.
CMS Policies and Reimbursement: Some, But Not All, Waivers Made Permanent
Since the expiry of the federal Public Health Emergency (PHE) in May 2023, the HHS, the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) have extended a number of Medicare exemptions and policies. While some of these flexibilities are permanent, many remain temporary. The following is a list of some of the more relevant extensions.
The recent change in administration has brought renewed scrutiny to telehealth reimbursement policies, with a particular focus on cost containment and fraud and abuse. This has created uncertainty for providers who made substantial investments in telehealth infrastructure based on pandemic-era policies that suggested a more permanent shift towards digital care delivery models.
Additionally, the allocation of federal and state healthcare funding has come under increased scrutiny, with concerns that an excessive percentage is being directed towards administrative functions rather than direct patient care. This administrative burden is particularly challenging for smaller practices and providers serving rural or underserved communities.
Capital Flow and Innovation in Digital Health Technologies
Although most of the pandemic-related economic challenges in the United States – labour shortages, supply chain disruptions, rising inflation and increased borrowing costs, among others – began to ease in 2024, the US economy is in a period of significant flux, based largely on the administration’s inconsistent implementation of tariffs (or threats thereof), uncoordinated federal cost-cutting, and a highly public spat with the Federal Reserve over interest rates. Historically, however, the healthcare industry and the digital health technology sector, in particular, have shown resilience despite fluctuating market conditions.
Venture capital investment in digital health has become more selective but remains robust for solutions that demonstrate clear clinical value and regulatory compliance. In early 2025, the American Hospital Association (AHA) published a summary of a recent survey which suggested that a rebound may be in store this year: of 103 senior leaders whose companies sell digital health products, 81% have a positive outlook or are cautiously optimistic about investment prospects for 2025; 79% said that their organisations would pursue new investment capital over the next 12 months.
Clinical workflow optimisation solutions, value-based care enablement platforms, and revenue cycle management technologies have attracted significant funding. A notable trend is the increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into digital health solutions, which brings both opportunities and challenges. While AI offers the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, streamline administrative tasks and personalise treatment plans, it also raises concerns about data privacy, regulatory compliance and clinical validity (see below).
The changing regulatory environment under the new administration has also raised concerns about potential limitations on research that examines differential treatment outcomes based on demographic factors such as gender, race, ethnicity and age. This could hamper efforts to address healthcare disparities and develop more personalised treatment protocols.
Additionally, reduced federal funding for clinical trials and research, including digital healthcare solutions, is creating gaps that private investment alone may struggle to fill. The lack of fully integrated platforms for clinical trial management remains a significant challenge, highlighting the need for enterprise-level solutions in this critical area of healthcare innovation.
Expanding Influence of AI on Medical Specialties and Workforce Dynamics
The rapid advancement of AI in healthcare is reshaping certain medical specialties, particularly those that rely heavily on image interpretation such as radiology, pathology and dermatology. As AI systems demonstrate increasing accuracy in reading X-rays, MRIs and other diagnostic images, some medical students and physicians are reconsidering their specialisation choices.
This trend reflects broader concerns about the potential for AI to displace certain aspects of physician work, though most experts emphasise that AI tools should augment rather than replace clinical judgement. Highlighting the continued importance of holistic clinical reasoning and patient interaction that extends beyond algorithmic interpretation, it is important to note that physicians do not treat films, they treat human patients.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stepped up its oversight of AI-enabled medical devices, requiring more rigorous validation and clearance processes. On 6 January 2025, the FDA published the Draft Guidance: Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Device Software Functions: Lifecycle Management and Marketing Submission Recommendations. This draft guidance proposes life cycle considerations and offers specific recommendations to support marketing submissions for AI-enabled medical devices. The draft guidance also highlights recommendations from previous guidance (in order to assist manufacturers with applying those recommendations to AI-enabled devices) and provides additional recommendations on topics of specific relevance for AI.
This heightened scrutiny reflects growing awareness of the potential risks associated with algorithmic decision-making in healthcare, including bias in training data and the challenge of validating continuously learning systems. Healthcare providers utilising AI tools for clinical documentation, such as automated note-taking during patient encounters, face potential Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations if proper safeguards are not in place. Health systems and hospitals are establishing stricter governance frameworks to mitigate these risks, but the rapid pace of innovation often outstrips the development of internal policies.
The integration of AI into medical practice also raises questions about training, credentialling and liability. Medical schools and residency programmes are beginning to incorporate AI literacy into their curricula, while professional societies are developing guidelines for the responsible use of these tools in clinical practice.
For digital health developers, these shifts underscore the importance of designing AI systems that complement clinical workflows and support physician decision-making rather than attempting to automate complex clinical judgements. Solutions that enhance efficiency while preserving the physician’s role as the ultimate decision-maker are likely to see the strongest adoption in the coming years.
Regulatory Oversight and Cybersecurity: Shifting Priorities
As the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) faces potential budget cuts under the new administration, its capacity to conduct oversight regarding compliance with HIPAA, the ADA and related legislation is likely to be constrained. This reduced federal oversight comes at a time when cybersecurity threats to healthcare entities are reaching unprecedented levels.
According to The HIPAA Journal, data breaches involving 500 or more healthcare records reached near-record numbers in 2024 (second only to 2023), continuing an alarming upward trend. Healthcare data remains a prime target for hackers due to its high value on black markets and the critical nature of healthcare operations that makes organisations more likely to pay ransoms.
A significant concern is the lack of a private right of action for individuals affected by healthcare data breaches, leaving many patients with limited recourse when their sensitive information is compromised. While many states have enacted laws more stringent than federal legislation, enforcement resources may be stretched thin.
The expected new HIPAA regulations under the Trump administration regarding cybersecurity will likely establish clearer standards for healthcare entities, but questions remain about implementation timelines and enforcement mechanisms in light of resource constraints.
For healthcare providers, researchers and vendors, cybersecurity has emerged as one of the most significant operational and compliance risks. The integration of AI systems, which often require access to vast amounts of patient data, further complicates the security landscape. Organisations must implement robust security frameworks that address not only technical vulnerabilities but also the human factors that often contribute to breaches.
Corporate Practice of Medicine: Outdated Laws Continue to Stymie Growth
Although many private equity investments in digital health offer distinct advantages – including expanded geographic reach, economies of scale and access to management expertise – they continue to risk violations of state corporate practice of medicine prohibitions.
This is a particularly pressing concern given that digital health research, development and implementation typically requires substantial financial resources, often only available through the types of private equity investments described above. Approximately three quarters of physicians in the USA are now salaried employees, and half of all physician practices are owned by a hospital or corporate entity.
By their very nature, telemedicine and digital health typically transcend jurisdictional boundaries. As a result, compliance with ownership, employment and other obligations in one state may not ensure compliance in another. This diversity of rules and exceptions continues to limit the formation, development and use of telemedicine alternatives for fear of creating legal exposure.
The ongoing wave of hospital mergers, driven by the need for scalability and financial sustainability in an environment of low reimbursements, further complicates this picture. While consolidation may enable the investment in technology infrastructure necessary for digital health innovation, it also raises antitrust concerns and questions about access to care, particularly in rural or underserved areas.
Until state legislatures modernise their approach to account for new methods of delivering care and the financial and operational arrangements that support such methods, telemedicine providers and healthcare entities will need to maintain rigorous compliance programmes that address the varying requirements across multiple jurisdictions.
Reproductive Telehealth: State Versus Federal Stalemates Continue
In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the landscape for reproductive telehealth remains highly fragmented. States continue to enact contradictory laws regarding access to abortion and other reproductive health services, creating significant challenges for telehealth providers operating across multiple jurisdictions.
Recent shifts in federal enforcement priorities have introduced additional complexity to this already challenging environment. With reduced OCR oversight capacity, concerns have emerged about the enforcement of privacy protections for individuals seeking reproductive healthcare through digital platforms.
Telehealth providers of reproductive healthcare services must navigate not only the varying state laws regarding the services themselves but also complex questions about data privacy, prescribing authority and insurance coverage. This regulatory complexity has led some providers to limit their geographic footprint, potentially reducing access to care for individuals in more restrictive states.
The legal status of medication abortion via telehealth remains particularly contentious. States remain divided, with approximately half allowing telehealth medication abortions and the other half either expressly or effectively banning this form of treatment. The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine preserved access to mifepristone in states where abortion is legal, but did not resolve the underlying tensions between state and federal authority in this area. In 2025, a federal district court judge in Texas ruled that three states – Idaho, Kansas and Missouri – have standing to continue a new challenge to the FDA’s rules on offering mifepristone via telemedicine.
Conclusion: Despite Conflicting Signals, Compliance Remains a Priority
Digital health has firmly established itself as an essential component of the US healthcare system, offering benefits in access, efficiency and potentially quality of care. However, the regulatory landscape continues to evolve rapidly, with significant variations across states and shifting federal priorities.
For digital health providers and the organisations that work with them, a robust compliance framework remains essential despite – or perhaps because of – the changing regulatory environment. As federal oversight resources potentially diminish in certain areas, the importance of proactive compliance programmes, comprehensive risk assessments and regular policy reviews becomes even more critical.
The integration of AI into healthcare, while offering tremendous potential, introduces new regulatory and ethical considerations that organisations must address thoughtfully. Meanwhile, ongoing challenges related to licensure, corporate practice of medicine restrictions, and varying state laws regarding specific services such as reproductive healthcare require careful attention to jurisdictional differences.
Despite these challenges, the fundamental value proposition of digital health remains compelling. Organisations that can navigate the complex and changing regulatory environment while delivering demonstrable clinical value will continue to find opportunities for growth and impact in this dynamic sector.
As we move further into 2025, digital health stakeholders must maintain vigilance regarding compliance obligations while advocating for regulatory frameworks that protect patients without unnecessarily hindering innovation. This balanced approach will be essential to realising the full potential of digital health to transform healthcare delivery in the United States.
Jones Walker LLP
201 St. Charles Ave
New Orleans
LA 70170-5100
USA
+1 504 582 8000
+1 504 582 8583
ndelahoussaye@joneswalker.com www.joneswalker.com