Direct Access Laboratory Testing: Physician Orders and Specimen Collection

A complex landscape of state laws overlays the direct access testing model, ranging from physician order requirements, such as telemedicine standards and the corporate practice of medicine doctrine, to specimen collection considerations, including how the varying options for collection could impact a model. How do these factors combine to create a roadmap for companies navigating the direct access testing industry? On the third episode of our four-part series on direct access laboratory testing, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Bob Hearn, Amy Lerman, and Megan Robertson discuss physician ordering and specimen collection considerations for direct access laboratory testing stakeholders.   Stay tuned for the final episode of our special series on direct access laboratory testing.   Visit our site for related resources and email contact information: https://www.ebglaw.com/dhc63.   Subscribe for email notifications: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe.   Visit: http://diagnosinghealthcare.com.   The EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and DIAGNOSING HEALTH CARE podcasts are presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.