Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Assessing the Benefits of the $100 Million Connected Care Pilot Program

By Jeffrey Mitchell on September 15, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC” or “Commission”) Wireline Bureau on September 3, 2020, released a Public Notice providing additional information regarding the upcoming $100 million Connected Care Pilot Program. You will recall that the Commission launched the pilot in April – joining it together in the same order approving the COVID-19 Telehealth Program (FCC 20-44). The Public Notice largely re-states the general outlines of the new pilot program: what is and is not eligible, who is eligible, and the overall purposes of the program. The Public Notice also notes the application process is not likely to begin before November 2020, but suggests interested applicants can and should begin preparing now. Thus, while the Commission awaits final Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approval for the actual application form, the just-released Public Notice provides a good overview of what a successful application process will likely need to include.

The purpose of this blog post is not to restate the Public Notice or the Connected Care order, but to highlight some important characteristics of the program to help you assess its potential benefits. First, while the Connected Care pilot program offers an 85% flat-rate subsidy (compared to 65% in the Commission’s Rural Health Care program), the application process will be involved and, post-award there will be significant project administrative burdens and eventually clinical data reporting obligations. In addition, the 85% subsidy is just that: a subsidy which takes the form of disbursements to eligible service providers in exchange for those service providers providing eligible entities with discounted services. The FCC does not disburse funding directly to applicants.

Second, the Connected Care pilot program will have a two-tiered approval process similar to the Rural Health Care pilot program that ran from 2007 to 2012:

  1. Submit project application to FCC for approval;
  2. FCC will evaluate and provide selected projects with a funding “award”;
  3. Selected projects must then apply to the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) for funding and follow the Rural Health Care program procurement process:
    1. Project conducts a rule-compliant competitive procurement;
    2. Project applies for funding;
    3. USAC issues funding commitment based on the scope of the procurement;
    4. Project invoices USAC to draw down funding against the commitment;
    5. Multiple-funding commitments will be allowed (up to the award amount);
  4. Project funds must be expended with three-years.

The scope of what is eligible for the 85% subsidy is somewhat narrow:

  1. Patient broadband internet access services (g., home or mobile broadband service) used “primarily, but not exclusively” for health care (i.e., no cost allocation required) (see FCC 20-44 at ¶ 58, n.142);
  2. Health care provider broadband data connections (but not connections between health care providers which are supported through the traditional Rural Health Care program).
  3. Other connected care “information services” (see FCC 20-44 at ¶ 61);
  4. Certain network equipment (g., equipment necessary to make a supported broadband service function such as routers; but not end-user devices such as smartphones, tablets, computers, or medical equipment).

Lastly, while eligible applicants include either rural or non-rural health care providers, the projects must support patients located in rural areas that are either low income or veterans (see Public Notice at 5-6).

Photo of Jeffrey Mitchell Jeffrey Mitchell

Jeff Mitchell has been practicing telecommunications law since 1999 with a practice that now specializes in federal and state broadband policies and regulatory compliance. Jeff has successfully represented numerous statewide broadband healthcare networks that obtained federal funding through the Department of Commerce and…

Jeff Mitchell has been practicing telecommunications law since 1999 with a practice that now specializes in federal and state broadband policies and regulatory compliance. Jeff has successfully represented numerous statewide broadband healthcare networks that obtained federal funding through the Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Rural Health Care Program. Jeff has represented program participants in audits and recent FCC enforcement actions in the Rural Health Care program and advises numerous program participants regarding program compliance. Jeff advocates for a regional network trade association on federal broadband policy and has assisted the Schools Health Libraries & Broadband (SHLB) Coalition to influence FCC efforts to reform the Rural Health Care and E-rate programs.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Communications, Media & Entertainment
  • Blog:
    CommLawBlog
  • Organization:
    Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Through The Immigration Lens
  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo