Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Who
was
the
first
woman
admitted
to
the
Supreme
Court
bar
and
the
first
woman
to
argue
a
case
before
the
Court?

Hint:
This
woman
was
a
noted
suffragette
and
politician.
She
ran
for
president
in
1884
and
1888
for
the
National
Equal
Rights
Party,
and
was
the
first
woman
to
appear
on
official
ballots,
but
whatever
votes
she
received were
all
from
men,
as
women
could
not
yet
vote.

See the
answer
on
the
next
page.

AI-powered
deepfake
technology
is
already
plaguing
the
business
world,
but
using
AI
can
lower
companies’
cyber
insurance
costs,
according
to
a
pair
of
surveys
flagged
by
Legal
Dive
this
week. 

Deepfakes
are
AI-manipulated
images
and
messages
that
convincingly
mimic
real
people,
often
for
social
engineering
scams. 

According
to
a


survey
of
over
1,500
U.S.
and
U.K.
finance
professionals

by
Medius,
53%
of
businesses
have
been
targeted
with
deepfake
scams,
and
85%
of
respondents
consider
them
an
“existential
threat”
to
their
companies. 

But
the
news
isn’t
all
bad. 

A
separate
survey
by
Delinea

found
that
half
of
U.S.
companies
use
AI
to
combat
scammers
through
practices
like
threat
detection
and
monitoring
—
and
that
this
is
lowering
their
insurance
costs. 

“These
advanced
technologies
are
proving
instrumental
in
reducing
cyber
insurance
premiums,”
Delinea

wrote
in
a
news
release,
“offering
a
strategic
advantage
to
policyholders
in
an
environment
where
overall
insurance
costs
are
on
the
rise.”

Companies
lean
on
AI
in
push
to
curb
cyber
insurance
costs
[Legal
Dive]


Deepfake
scams
escalate,
hitting
53%
of
businesses
[Legal
Dive]

Jeremy
Barker
is
the
director
of
content
marketing
for
Breaking
Media.
Feel
free
to email
him with
questions
or
comments
and
to connect
on
LinkedIn. 

More
than
330
healthcare
organizations
signed
letters
this
week
urging
the
White
House
and
Congress
to
extend
a
telehealth
prescribing
flexibility
that
was
introduced
during
the
Covid-19
pandemic. 

Failure
to
extend
this
policy
would
cause
millions
of
Americans
to
lose
access
to
“critically important
healthcare
treatment,”
the
organizations
wrote.

In
2020,
Congress

waived
a
rule
that
required
an
in-person
visit
to
establish
a
relationship
between
a
patient
and
their
provider
before
any
prescriptions
can
be
given
via
telehealth.
The
Drug
Enforcement
Administration
had
originally
planned
to
roll
back
this
flexibility
last
year,
but
the
agency

extended
it
through
the
end
of
2024
after
receiving
more
than
38,000
comments
on
its
proposed
rule.

For
nearly
four
years
now,
providers

have
been
using
the
telehealth
prescribing
flexibility
to
prescribe
controlled
substances.
These
include
Schedule
II
drugs,
such
as
stimulant
medications
to
treat
ADHD
like
Adderall
and
Vyvanse,
as
well
as
opioids
like
Percocet
and
Dilaudid.
These
also
include
Schedule
III-V
controlled
substances,
such
as
common
psychiatric
drugs
like
Xanax,
Ambien
and
Prozac,
as
well
as
drugs
that
treat
substance
use
disorder
like
buprenorphine.

The
DEA
is
still
working
on
a
new
proposed
rule
that
will
dictate
whether
or
not
providers
can
prescribe
controlled
substances
via
telehealth
after
this
year
—
but
last
week,
its
plans
were

leaked
by
media
outlets. 

The
agency’s
rule
—
which
is
not
final
and
is
currently
being
reviewed
at
the
White
House
—
is
definitely
not
what
telehealth
advocates
were
calling
for.

The
rule
would
get
rid
of
providers’
ability
to
prescribe
Schedule
II
drugs
via
telehealth
without
a
prior
in-person
appointment
—
either
by
establishing
new
regulations
or
simply
allowing
the
pandemic-era
flexibility
to
expire
at
the
end
of
the
year.
On
the
other
hand,
Schedule
III-V
drugs
would
still
be
allowed
to
be
prescribed
via
telehealth
without
an
in-person
visit.

Additionally,
the
unpublished
rule
would
require
that
no
more
than
half
of
a
provider’s
prescriptions
may
be
given
via
telehealth
appointment.
It
also
includes
a
mandate
for
prescribers
to
check
all
50
states’
prescription
drug
monitoring
programs
before
writing
a
prescription
for
a
patient
with
whom
they
have
never
had
an
in-person
visit.
However,
enforcing
this
requirement
will
be
difficult,
as

providers
say
there
is
no
national
registry
where
providers
could
easily
check
whether
or
not
the
patient
had
obtained
a
prescription
for
the
drug
in
another
state.

Many
provider
organizations
have
reacted
to
the
leaked
rule
with
outrage.
On
Tuesday,
more
than
300
groups
sent
separate
letters
to
the

White
House,

Senate
and

House,
imploring
them
to
roll
back
the
strict
rules
that
the
DEA
is
reportedly
planning
to
propose.
Some
of
these
organizations
included
Amazon,
Cleveland
Clinic,
Mass
General
Brigham,
Hims
&
Hers
Health,
the
American
College
of
Physicians,
and
the
National
Rural
Health
Association.

“The
ongoing
challenges
in
accessing
mental
health
and
substance
use
treatment
services,
particularly
in
rural
and
underserved
areas,
underscore
the
importance
of
maintaining
these
flexibilities.
More
than
half
of
U.S.
counties

do
not
have
a
psychiatrist.
The
shortage
is
even
more
prominent
in
rural
areas,
with

nearly
three
quarters
of
rural
counties
lacking
a
psychiatrist,”
read
the
groups’
letter
to
the
White
House.

Extending
the
prescribing
flexibility
would
mean
that
millions
of
patients
in
these
underserved
areas
would
get
to
keep
their
access
to
treatment,
the
organizations
argued
in
their
letter.

The
letter
also
pointed
out
that
there
is
very
little
time
to
make
this
happen.

“Given
how
late
we
are
in
the
year
and
with
the
waiver
expiring
on
December
31,
there
is
very
little
time left
for
the
DEA
to
release
a
draft
rule
for
public
comment,
close
the
comment
period,
review
the substantive
feedback,
and
finalize
the
rule
in
time
for
the
end
of
the
year.
Nearly
40,000
comments
were submitted
last
year
when
the
DEA
first
attempted
to
draft
rules
for
a
permanent
framework
on
remote
prescribing
of
controlled
substances,”
it
read.

Photo:
Rawf8,
Getty
Images

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“The
Chief
Justice
Roberts
Who
Stood
Up
Last
Term
Was
More
Interested
in
Advancing
a
Conservative
Legal
Agenda
than
Promoting
Judicial
Statesmanship”: Law
professor Rodger
Citron has
this
two-part
essay
(access part
one; part
two)
online
at
Justia’s
Verdict.

“The
Supreme
Court’s
Effort
to
Save
Trump
Is
Already
Working;
The
conservative
justices
created
so
many
avenues
for
challenge
and
confusion
that
the
Court
functionally
collaborated
in
Trump’s
strategy
of
delay”: Quinta
Jurecic
has this
essay online
at
The
Atlantic.

“Gun
Control
Laws
See
a
Circuit
Court
Boost,
Rooted
in
Rahimi;
Some
courts
rely
on
Barrett
concurrence
to
uphold
gun
restrictions;
Dissenting
judges
decry
more
generalized
historic
analysis”: Mike
Vilensky
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.

“Harvard
enrolls
fewer
Black
freshmen
after
affirmative
action
ban”: Hilary
Burns
of
The
Boston
Globe
has this
report.

“Opioid
plaintiffs’
committee
urges
US
appeals
court
to
toss
fee
bid
by
shut-out
law
firms”: Alison
Frankel’s
“On
the
Case”
from
Reuters
has this
post.

“Why
Mike
Lee
Folded:
In
2016,
he
tried
to
stop
Trump
from
becoming
president.
By
2020,
he
was
trying
to
help
Trump
overturn
the
election.
Now
he
could
become
Trump’s
attorney
general.” Tim
Alberta
has this
article in
the
October
2024
issue
of
The
Atlantic.