Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Saturday, May 6, 2023

Former Queens Superintendent Jennifer Carreon Sues the NYC DOE For Racist Policies and Discrimination

 What is going on at the NYC Department of Education?

On March 4, 2023 the NY POST did a story on District 31 Superintendent Dr. Marion Wilson who allegedly sent out racist text messages to Chancellor Banks and others, vowing to "get rid of white principals" and “clean up this island”

See:   City probing anti-white texts linked to black superintendent

Dr. Marion Wilson [photo: Jason Paderon]

And the current news from District 31 (Staten Island) is that there is chaos going on. PS 46 Principal Heather Jansen (who is white) was removed on May 1, 2023. MUCH more about that in a future post.

Never a dull moment, folks.

Betsy Combier

betsy@advocatz.com

Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog


Jennifer Carreon has filed a $20 million discrimination lawsuit against the city Department of Education.Helayne Seidman

By Susan Edelman, NY POST, May 6, 2023

A Filipino-American woman replaced as a Queens superintendent by her black male deputy has filed a $20 million race and gender discrimination suit against the city Department of Education, The Post has learned.

Jennifer Carreón, 45, contends Chancellor David Banks demoted her to install her less-experienced No. 2, David Norment, out of desire to elevate black males.

The Manhattan Supreme Court suit, filed this week, is the first to legally challenge Banks’ choice of superintendents since he made all 45 reapply for their jobs last year in what he called “a shakeup.”

One of 12 removed, Carreón was assigned a lesser bureaucratic role.

The Asian-American Pacific Islander attended NYC public schools from K to 12, growing up in subsidized housing in Lower Manhattan. She started working for the DOE as a teacher in 2002, rising to principal, assistant superintendent, and acting superintendent. She was appointed District 27 superintendent in 2019 by then-Chancellor Richard Carranza.

Carreón told The Post that she hired Norment as her deputy, and took him under her wing. “I was fostering and nurturing his leadership,” she said.

She even encouraged him to become a superintendent.

“When the process opened, he did tell me that he wanted to apply for the Bronx, because that’s where he lives. I said, ‘Oh, good luck, Let me know what I can do to support you.’” 

To her surprise, the DOE invited Norment to a District 27 town hall to compete with his boss for her job.

Norment, an ex-principal at PS 140 in Jamaica, told the Community Education Council that he’d be the best leader to “turn around” schools with low test scores.

Carreón claimed that she was replaced by David Norment because Chancellor David Banks wanted to elevate black males.
district27nyc.org

“I have been a good fit,” Carreón argued at the town hall, saying she connected with immigrant parents and upheld high expectations for students.

In a final blow, Banks introduced the winners at a City Hall press conference.

“I didn’t have any clue,” Carreón said. “Everyone was texting me, “Why aren’t you here? Why is your deputy here?’

“It was a huge shock. I was devastated, because I was succeeding. I was highly effective. That was my last evaluation.”

Banks made all 45 superintendents reapply for their jobs last year.
Matthew McDermott

Desmond Blackburn, Bank’s since-departed deputy chancellor for leadership, had previously praised her 20-minute PowerPoint pitch — in which she described her accomplishments and plans — to remain in the post.

After her ouster, she said, Blackburn gave no explanation except, “The chancellor decided to go in a different direction.”

“It’s not a different direction because they hired my deputy,” Carreón said. “I taught him how to do things, and he needed some work. He needed more growth and was not as experienced, or ready to take on the largest district in Queens and one of the largest in the city.

Carreón originally hired Norment (second from right) to be her deputy.
Twitter D27NYC

District 27 covers 50 schools with 41,500 students in southern Queens and the Rockaways. The students are 41% Hispanic, 21.9% Asian-American, 20.6% black, and 9.9% white.

Banks bowed “to the discriminatory push by certain members of the community to select Norment solely because of his race,” the suit charges.

Lisa Johnson Cooper, president of District 27’s Community Education Council, a panel of parents who interviewed the candidates, told The Post she got personal Facebook messages from residents urging support for “the brother,” referring to Norment.

Cooper, who is black, wrote back: “Y’all vote by party line and by color. That’s crazy to me and no, I’m not getting ‘the brother’ in.”

In an orientation for the newly-installed superintendents last July, Carreón heard from colleagues that a member of the chancellor’s team commented openly, Look around the room – what do you notice? There’s a black male at every table,” the suit says.

Carreón, like several other displaced superintendents, accepted a newly created title, executive director of School Support and Operations, in Lower Manhattan’s District 1, at the same salary, $187,400. The appointed superintendents got raises to $215,000 or $230,000.

“I feel degraded,” she said. “I’ve worked so hard my entire career, did everything you’re supposed to do, and exceeded expectations. Everything was always pointing upwards.” 

Carreón’s lawyers, Davida Perry and Brian Heller, also have pending race-discrimination suits against the DOE on behalf of four white women and a white male who all claim that ex-Chancellor Carranza demoted and replaced them with less-qualified people of color.

DOE and city Law Department officials would not comment.

Wednesday, April 12, 2023

Editorial: Reply To Chad LaVeglia


 When an Attorney violates their code of ethics in any way, it is bad for everyone in the judicial system.

Many readers of this post have wondered what happened that made Chad Laveglia turn on me as seen below. Let me tell you my thoughts. 

In October 2022 when I was quoted in the media about the "fake vaccination cards" case, Chad blew up, saying that HE was the only one who could speak for the Petitioners, "his" clients, and paralegals - i.e. me - cannot practice law, as I was doing by speaking about the case. Here is what he wrote in an email to a reporter: " I AM THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING 30 TEACHERS.  Paralegals cannot practice law...please do not attribute comments to my clients without speaking with me. I am the only one authorized to speak for them." Huh? That came out of the blue. He never made that a term of engagement. Moreover, he never spoke with any of the Petitioners, but I did, 24/7, whenever they called me to ask about writing an email to the UFT, getting benefits while off salary, etc. 

Chad then followed up with another email: "Betsy is amazing. And is more knowledgeable about disciplinary matters than almost anyone....I am to criminal law what Betsy is to education law." 

Thanks Chad!!! Then, in February 2023 after thanking Chad for using the papers I ghostwrote for a teacher appealing his case to the Court of Appeals, I received the emails posted below. I honestly was honored to have him use the papers.

Unbeknownst to me at the time, my position in Chad's eyes as a lowly paralegal who knew nothing about due process rights - or had no right to know - threatened his "I am much better than you" level. My goal was then and is now to assist people in getting their due process, and making sure that everyone can enjoy their rights to life, liberty and justice. 

People who assist or judge individuals based on their perceived social-financial status level is not my way or the right way.

Just sayin'....

I believe that everyone deserves a chance, and I gave Attorney Chad LaVeglia every chance to be professional. He has continued his bully tactics with several of his clients. Therefore, I am posting my reply to his emails sent to me in February which should never have been sent.

Re-posted from Advocatz Op-Ed: MY REPLY TO CHAD LAVEGLIA

Dear Chad,

I debated not answering your venom-filled email sent to me and your new “Chief Executive/client” Monique Parsons  (Index No. 206973/2022) – who I don’t know, and never spoke to – but I see no other way to protect your future clients from the confusion and distress you have caused in the case I worked with you on, the “fake vaccination card” case. I believe no hate-filled bully such as you should be allowed to spread lies about anyone, at any time,  and I will do whatever I can to stop your destruction of people’s trust and lives.

The email you sent your client Mrs. Parsons and me on February 16, 2023 is posted in full below.

Everything I write in this Op-Ed is my opinion, and I am not an attorney, as you very well know. I could have been one. My dad, an Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York for 20+ years under AG Louis Lefkowitz, the people you hate, wanted me to go to law school and he would have paid for it. But I became an investigative reporter instead. Life happens.

In June 2022 when I asked if you would work with me (at Petitioners’ request) on the case of teachers who were erroneously and unlawfully accused of defrauding the City of New York and the NYC Department of Education by allegedly “buying” a COVID vaccination card instead of getting the shot, you told me that you knew nothing about Education Law. I said this is a due process case, and I could contribute information on Education Law 3020-a, the tenure law protecting teachers’ rights. I told you about my experience as a non-Attorney participating in 3020-a arbitration since 2003. We also discussed the untenured teachers’ rights to due process. You agreed to work on the case and told me to keep the Petitioners aware of the case but not to contact you, and keep the Petitioners away as well. If needed, I would email you. I did exactly as you requested. Indeed, before February 11 2023 you told me that I did a great job.

I know you HATED the fact that I was quoted in the media, and you believe that YOU should be the only person quoted. I chose to ignore your incredibly absurd outburst. And when we won the case, I emailed you that I was very happy that you used a paper I wrote for a Plaintiff who presented it to the Court of Appeals. All was good.

On December 30, 2022 Judge Gina Abadi in Kings County Supreme Court granted the Petition, giving the Petitioners their jobs back, and backpay.

Then on Feb. 6, 2023, the City appealed point #4 in Abadi’s order, that they must never again place “tenured Petitioners on leave without pay or reassigning them to reassignment centers without the DOE first commencing disciplinary procedures pursuant to EL 3020 and 3020-a”

See ORDER OF JUDGE ABADI

Neither I nor any of the Petitioners heard from you about whether you were going to submit an Opposition to the Reargument, so I and a Petitioner wrote you on February 11, asking whether you were doing the argument, because you had told me that you do not do appeals.

Your answer on Feb. 13:

“Hi Betsy,
Good to hear from you! And thank you for the kind words. I briefly read their motion. It’s pretty silly. 
I had intended on reaching out. As an aside, I’ve been back and forth with corp counsel. I can respond, and have no problem doing so, just need to work out the logistics i.e., payment”
Then we asked the substance of the communication with the Corporation Counsel. I guess that was our mistake. You despise questions.
You answered on Feb 14, 2023:

“Hey Betsy,

Our conversations revolve around getting the administrative mess between DOE and UFT settled. 
Their motion has nothing to do with backpay or reinstatement. they’re really misinterpreting the 4th grant of relief. 
I don’t have time to speak. I also insist on an agreement upon which I am compensated before performing any further work. 
My Chief Executive is cc’d on this email. Please address further correspondence to her. 
thank you”
We emailed you and Mrs. Parsons asking if you were helping get backpay (we have no information on your help with this), and how much you would charge for the Reargument and Appeal. We were never trying to get any of your time for free. But dont you have to tell your clients how much you want to be paid?
You replied:
“Hi Betsy,
I’m going to explain something quick as a courtesy. This isn’t personal but take it as you like. 
I am no longer spending a single second of my time performing any legal services—directly or indirectly—unless I’m getting paid; like every single other business in the world. I am now extremely stringent with my time. My services are OVER per the engagement agreement. My job is done. I already got backpay for everyone, I won the case. It’s over. It is remarkable to me that not a single Petitioner was able to work this out internally with payroll. 
It is not my problem that the UFT and DOE are too stupid to figure out simple backpay. I was trying to expedite/facilitate getting the teachers backpay. I was generously giving up my time to help others for nothing in return. No more. 
I specifically told you to email Mrs. Parsons, and you just ignored me. That’s just disrespectful and inconsiderate of my time. I’m not dealing with it.” 

Chad, you got backpay for nobody.

Then on Feb. 15, 2023 at 3:59pm, you emailed all the Petitioners in our case, and cc to Mrs. Parsons, his client (but for some unknown reason you did NOT send it to me):

“Hi all, 

Unrelated- I am not dealing with Betsy going forward. I admire Betsy’s dedication to helping teachers, her fortitude, knowledge, and accomplishments. She has as good heart and means well. There is no drama here. I just don’t have the time,  or the patience. I could always charge my hourly fee and bill for every second of mine Betsy consumes.”
The Petitioners answer to me:   ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ we appreciate you! ❤️ ❤️ ❤️
On February 16 a Petitioner in the case sent your email to me, reluctantly, after I asked her if she had heard from you and she told me everyone had, but were very upset with your email.
I sent you an email asking you why you did not send the email to me, and to cease and desist from writing about me without my knowing, and making up false statements such as I spoke with you too much and wasted your time. You know this is not true.
Very soon after I sent my email, you sent this to me and your client Monique Parsons:
“Betsy, you are so out of your depth here. And your timing is horrible.  This is what I said-
“Unrelated- I am not dealing with Betsy going forward. I admire Betsy’s dedication to helping teachers, her fortitude, knowledge, and accomplishments. She has as good heart and means well. There is no drama here. I just don’t have the time,  or the patience. I could always charge my hourly fee and bill for every second of mine Betsy consumes. “
Where is the attack on your integrity and work ethic or maligning of your name? Please point it out to me. Because those words are called compliments. Either you live in a different reality, or don’t comprehend the English language. Which one is it? And you’re so damn selfish and thin skinned that you have the audacity to come at me again—at a time when I am scrambling to help hundreds of employees? What is wrong with you? I certainly have no respect for you now, not as a person or a professional.  You want to see what an ultimate insult looks like Betsy? Here we go. 
This is the second time; you pulled this fake victim card. I have no tolerance for your bullshit. You talk too much and waste my time. Time, I don’t have to give.  And certainly not for free. It’s that simple.  You brought nothing to the table as far as the law or legal strategy. You go off on tangents. But you are extremely shortsighted and only care about yourself. Hence this second, absurd email. I let you get away with it the first time. but no more.  
In fact, you seem to think you’re special. You’re not. I’d say you have balls for emailing me, but it’s stupidity.  Further, I don’t give a shit what you drafted, or for who you drafted it for. You’re not a lawyer. Accept that. Stop trying to be one. And stop expecting to be treated like one. It seems like you think we’re on the same level. You’re delusional. Your administrative accolades are equivalent to me being the MVP of little league baseball. I fight every day for the plight of the little guy. But you’re not the little guy. You have a nice cushy place in NYC. You have nothing in common with the working class. You’re a phony.  I could go on, but I’m bored. You’re insignificant to me. Truly, insignificant. Your cease-and-desist bit is hilarious btw 🤡.  I’m going to block you now Betsy. Good riddens. 


I hate to admit it, but I cried all night of the 16th. Your words really stung. But let your bully pulpit go unrecognized for what it is? Never.


You say you fight every day for the “little guy”? So do I. But I am available to anyone 24/7, i.e. every day, all day (unless I am in a 3020-a or a Court mediation) for free. Ah, I know what you say to that. I’m not an attorney, so I do not know anything, and people shouldn’t speak to me because what I say has no value. Ok, why not let them decide?  Thank goodness many people do not believe you. For those who do, I wish them godspeed. They will need it. I play the victim card? Never have, never will. Is this a feeble attempt to intimidate me? I dont fall for stuff like that.

You say I live in a cushy place in NYC? How do you know? I do not believe that you have ever been here.  Did you judge my location as on the Upper East Side, so everyone lives a ‘cushy’ lifestyle.? You have no idea what my life is like, but let me tell you, it is a happy place, with items left from the happy school days of my four daughters, teen purple hair, rescue puppies, blind white labrador retriever, my guinea pig sophie, beanie babies and my Winnie-the- Pooh and Paddington Bear collections.


Chad, do you see the picture at the top of this Op-Ed? Do you see the man standing next to me and two of
my daughters, and in the picture below with my mom?
 

This person is my husband of 39 years, a nice man from Lima Peru who worked for the City of New York for 40 years, 37 years at Hunter College, as an electrician. Local Union No. 3 IBEW (“Local 3”). Is this the “little guy” I know nothing about? Isn’t my husband a working-class person with whom you say I have nothing in common? In my opinion, his respect for everyone on the planet – whether the person is black, white, purple or green, of any religion, gender, age, or financial position – makes him a better person than you. I dont know what level you are on that is so far above my level, but I couldn’t care less.

One more thing –
You ended your email to me on the 16th with “Good riddens “.
The correct way to write this is “Good riddance”.





I

Wednesday, March 29, 2023

Fourth Grade Math and Reading Scores in NY Go Down


Our kids are not doing well.

The solution? There is no general answer. Parents have to decide for themselves what school they want their kids in, and whether they would do better in a private, public, charter or religious school. Do not be swayed by anyone. 

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog

DiNapoli: Federal Data Shows New York's Losses in Fourth Grade Math and Reading Scores Are Double National Average

March 13, 2023

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli today released a review of recent federal data about how the pandemic negatively affected student performance in New York. In response, he urged New York school districts to assess their plans for spending federal pandemic funds and to target funds towards children most in need.

New York was allocated over $15 billion in emergency education aid during the pandemic from the federal government, with $14 billion from three rounds of the Elementary and Secondary School Relief Fund (ESSER) assistance. This aid was aimed at elementary and secondary schools and must be obligated by September 2024. Based on data from DiNapoli’s COVID-19 Relief Program Tracker, through Jan. 31 New York’s school districts have spent roughly 40% of ESSER funds.

“The classroom disruptions caused by the pandemic have hurt New York’s students. Academic losses were greater for younger students, with fourth grade scores dropping more than the national average,” DiNapoli said. “School districts must act quickly to take full advantage of available resources to help students that are most in need get caught up, before time runs out.”

Recent data from The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows student performance dropped significantly in 2022 from 2019. New York’s average score remained steady for eighth grade reading but declined in eighth grade math (down 6 points). Over this time, New York’s losses in fourth grade math and reading scores were double the national average and exceeded 45 other states in math and 38 other states in reading. The average drop for fourth grade math scores (10 points) was so severe that McKinsey & Company estimated this learning loss to be the equivalent of nearly an entire school year.

Over the same time frame, fourth grade math proficiency rates declined across all gender, racial and ethnic groups, and the decline was steepest for Asian and Pacific Islander students, at 14 percentage points. Students from low-income households also experienced steep declines in fourth grade math proficiency rates from 24% to 18%.

The Executive Budget proposes $42.1 billion in combined state and federal education aid for the upcoming state fiscal year (SFY) 2023-24; however, that total is projected to decline, as the balance of federal pandemic relief funds must be obligated by September 2024. This could be problematic if a significant portion of the relief funds is left unspent or is dedicated to programs with recurring expenses or if significant progress in academic recovery has not occurred.

DiNapoli urged the State Education Department to provide school districts with guidance on best practices for spending of funds and encouraged school districts to ensure funds are being used for evidence-based practices for students most in need.

Report
“Nation’s Report Card” Underscores New York’s Need for Academic Recovery


Sunday, March 26, 2023

Does The End of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Bring An End To Telehealth?




   






‘This could actually be catastrophic’: What the end of the public health emergency means for telehealth

When the COVID-19 public health emergency ends in May, some patients will face new hurdles to the telemedicine services they’ve relied on for three years.

BY ISSIE LAPOWSKY, Fast Company, March 21, 2023 

Over the past few weeks, desperate messages have been pouring into the telehealth company Boulder Care from patients who say a new proposed rule by the federal government could put their health—and their lives—at risk.

The rule, proposed by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), would require anyone being prescribed certain controlled substances via telemedicine to see a doctor in person in order to continue their care online. That includes drugs like buprenorphine, which Boulder Care’s providers use to treat people with opioid use disorder, but also testosterone therapy for transgender people, Adderall prescriptions for kids with ADHD, and any other controlled medications. When the pandemic began, the DEA had waived this in-person requirement as part of the public health emergency. Now that the public health emergency is set to end in May, the DEA wants to take away that waiver.

In the patient responses Boulder received, each message was more dire than the next. Some worried about being able to even travel to see a doctor. “There [aren’t] any clinics close to me, and I don’t have reliable transportation to get an hour to an hour and a half away, which is what I would have to do,” read one.

Others expressed fear at having to share their personal struggles with a local doctor in a small community. “Being able to protect my anonymity was the only way I was successfully able to get addiction treatment, and I’m sure most everyone using these telehealth services feels the same,” read another. 

According to Stephanie Strong, founder and CEO of Boulder Care, several hundred of the company’s patients live in a remote area, lack transportation, and don’t currently have a primary care provider. Now, she’s hoping that lifting up the voices of Boulder’s patients will help convince the DEA—or other parts of the federal government—that requiring in-person visits could have disastrous consequences. 

“The people who are struggling most in their addiction and in their lives are the very people who will struggle most with this rule,” Strong says. “We expect this could actually be catastrophic and put doctors in the really difficult position of denying care for someone’s life-threatening condition.”

Before President Biden’s State of the Union address this year, the White House laid out an agenda, which included a commitment to expand telehealth services for mental health and substance use disorder. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), meanwhile, said in February that while the public health emergency was ending, the DEA would soon propose a rule that would extend pandemic-era flexibilities for certain drug prescriptions. 

But while the DEA’s proposed rule is more flexible than the pre-pandemic law, the proposal would reinstate an in-person-visit requirement that didn’t exist during the pandemic. The rule wouldn’t apply to things like antibiotics or blood pressure medication, but it would impose new hurdles for patients being treated with certain controlled drugs

New patients would need to go see a doctor within 30 days of beginning telemedicine treatment for buprenorphine, while existing patients would have 180 days to do the same. For people seeking prescriptions for Adderall to treat ADHD, the rules will be even stricter once the public health emergency ends, requiring patients to have an in-person visit before receiving any further telehealth care. That could be a crisis for kids, in particular, given the monthslong wait times for child developmental specialists in the U.S.  

For Strong and others, these proposed hurdles suggest the administration isn’t keeping its promises. “It’s not what we expected,” says Zack Gray, cofounder and CEO of Ophelia, another telehealth company that treats people with opioid use disorder. “It is unfortunate; and if it holds, it’s going to have significant consequences for public health.” 

The DEA declined to comment, beyond its initial press release on the proposed rule. 

An HHS official tells Fast Company that the agency has been working in consultation with the DEA and considers the proposal a “middle ground” between the pre-pandemic law and the total flexibility of the COVID-19 era. According to the official, HHS’s main goal has been to ensure that there is a rule in place before the public health emergency ends, so that patients aren’t immediately required to see a provider in-person before continuing care. “If May 11 hits and we don’t have a final rule in place, it’s pre-pandemic law that we default back to,” the official says. “Pre-pandemic law is so much more restrictive than even the proposal that’s on the table right now.”

But the official says HHS is “very much aware” of the concerns Strong, Gray, and others are raising and that the agency has been discussing these issues with the DEA.

The Ryan Haight Act was signed into law in 2008 to regulate online prescriptions of controlled substances. That law directed the attorney general to promulgate rules that would allow for the special registration of telemedicine providers. But those rules never came. A decade later, former President Trump signed the Support Act into law, once again instructing the DEA to create rules regarding the special registration of telemedicine providers within a year. That deadline passed in October 2019. For people who have waited for years for the special registration process to materialize, it’s frustrating to see this proposed rule sidestep the question altogether. 

“We needed a solution to this years ago,” says Libby Baney, a partner at the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath and an advisor to the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies, an industry group focused on addressing the illegal online drug trade.

The public has until the end of March to comment on the proposal before the DEA finalizes its rule or pulls it altogether. Already, thousands of responses have flooded in. “We thought that they were going to make an announcement about a special registration that said, ‘Here’s how legitimate telehealth prescribers can get around the in-person visit requirement,’” Gray of Ophelia says. “That’s not what happened.”

“We’re kind of begging to be regulated, as a sector,” Strong of Boulder Care says. “We want telemedicine rules that are common sense and protect patient safety and all the things that we know are important. And this rule is not that.”

And yet, the HHS official warns that there is no guarantee that this long-awaited special registration for telemedicine providers wouldn’t come with the same in-person requirements as the DEA’s proposed rule. “I don’t think you can just assume that the statute says create a list, the list is created, and no other guard rails will be there,” the official says, adding that the absence of the special registration may actually end up saving providers from having to jump through additional hoops.

Since the start of the pandemic, telehealth use has grown 38 times pre-pandemic levels. But the end of the public health emergency is bringing uncertainty even to telemedicine providers who don’t deal with controlled substances. TimeDoc Health offers chronic-care management services for providers whose patients need long-term monitoring in between appointments with their doctor. The reimbursement policy that allows for those services predated the pandemic, but according to Will Boeglin, cofounder and CEO of TimeDoc, it’s still unclear whether the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will reinstate the in-person requirement for enrollment in those services when the public health emergency ends. Reverting to the pre-pandemic rules, Boeglin says, would likely lead to a drop off in adoption of these services, which help providers with staffing shortages and also reduce costs for Medicare

“I think everyone’s kind of hoping and expecting that they’re not going to revert some of these changes, because it feels like a step backwards,” Boeglin says. CMS did not respond to Fast Company’s request for comment.

While the DEA’s proposed rule wasn’t what most of the telemedicine sector was hoping for, it also wasn’t a complete surprise. Last year, the Department of Justice launched an investigation into Cerebral, a telemedicine company focused on mental health, for possible over-prescribing of controlled substances, including Adderall. Cerebral’s CEO has said he’s “confident” the company’s prescribing practices have been above board. 

At a time when the government is concerned about reckless prescribing of drugs like Adderall, Baney says, it stands to reason that they’d want to implement a rule that slows down the process. “You can think of it as a stop sign, which to some patients means they just won’t get access to care anymore,” Baney says. “But a stop sign could be a very good thing if you’re the DEA, and you’re trying to limit overprescribing of controlled substances. A stop sign is exactly the intent.” But Baney warns that this stop sign might actually be an offramp, leading patients to less safe online marketplaces for prescription drugs.

When it comes to opioid use disorder treatment at least, telehealth executives, including Strong, point to mounting evidence that during the three years that the in-person waiver was in place, access to telehealth services increased people’s chances of sticking with treatment and reduced their risk of an overdose. “They’re ostensibly trying to regulate it to prevent an overdose crisis,” Strong says. “We are trying to stop an overdose crisis that already exists.”

Gray, meanwhile, argues that no one in the government has made much of a case for why in-person visits are medically necessary to treat people with substance use or mental health issues. “If you’ve ever been to a psychiatrist for anxiety, depression, they don’t take your shirt off and take your blood pressure. They talk,” he says. “Nobody has come out and explained what the physical exam is supposed to accomplish.”

If the DEA moves forward with the rule, there are other levers the government could pull to address at least some of the concerns telehealth companies have. Legislators, for one, could pass a law waiving the in-person-visit requirement, which Baney says Congress specifically opted not to do last year, as it was drafting its omnibus bill, offloading the responsibility instead to the DEA. 

Another option would be for HHS and the Attorney General to agree to extend the in-person waivers for buprenorphine prescriptions specifically under the opioid public health emergency, once the COVID-19 public health emergency ends. The HHS official says that the agency is “still evaluating” that option, but acknowledged that that would only address concerns for a subset of patients whose medication is impacted by the rule.

For now, Strong and her team at Boulder Care are trying to prepare patients as best they can, using their network of patient navigators to help direct people to in-person providers. But she has little doubt that there will be people for whom this requirement will mean stopping treatment or turning to illicit markets for the drugs they need, with potentially tragic results.

“If you’re choosing between going to a doctor, which is really hard, and getting Suboxone or Xanax or something on the street, which is really easy, as the DEA [itself] says, it only takes one pill to kill,” Strong says, “and that’s how people overdose.”