OIG Looking Closely at Telehealth as it Weighs Future Enforcement Mike Miliard, Healthcare IT News August 2021 In a HIMSS21 session with updates on the HHS inspector general's oversight and compliance efforts, officials said they plan to ensure virtual care is provided with integrity, and will take aim at telehealth fraud schemes. The Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services works to ensure the integrity of federal healthcare programs and to safeguard the health and welfare of those programs' beneficiaries. In a session at HIMSS21 on Tuesday, two HHS OIG leaders offered a look at the enforcement priorities the agency has in mind these days, and some hints about the compliance responsibilities healthcare organizations should be prioritizing in the coming months. OIG claims to recover three taxpayer dollars for every dollar it spends, and recoups billions in misspent money every year. Speaking via webcam, Lisa Re, assistant inspector general of legal affairs at OIG, offered an update on some of the legal liabilities and risk areas in the health IT space, related to the False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. She recounted some of the agency's enforcement actions in recent years, with companies such as athenahealth, CareCloud, eClinicalWorks and Practice Fusion required to pay millions to settle cases. Andrew Vanlandingham, senior counselor for Medicaid Policy and acting health IT lead at OIG, called attention to recent revisions to safe harbors under the Anti-Kickback Statute and Civil Monetary Penalty Rules around coordinated care. He also highlighted a major new priority at OIG: telehealth. "As policymakers, we want to look at what telehealth might look like after the pandemic," said Vanlandingham. "All of those questions are centered around where do they plan on taking this? How will this impact their expenditures for healthcare programs? How to make sure that patients are getting good quality care from telehealth? And I think it's important for us to recognize that we don't know a whole lot right now." He said the OIG is guided by a philosophy summed up in a quote from HHS Principal Deputy Inspector General Christi A. Grimm: "It is important that new policies and technologies with potential to improve care and enhance convenience achieve these goals and are not compromised by fraud, abuse or misuse." When new technologies such as telehealth – with huge upside, but also potential risks – become more commonplace, "it's up to OIG and other healthcare stakeholders to make sure they do live up to that promise and aren't compromised by fraud, abuse or misuse," said Vanlandingham. "And we recognize that a lot of folks in the audience are doing just that: implementing telehealth so it works for patients, for the providers, and is a good tool to enhance care." He said OIG is "working hard to assess how telehealth utilization changed during the pandemic – what that means for corporate integrity, what that means for access, what that means for health equity. We have roughly eight audits and studies ongoing right now that we hope will really be the first down payment for OIG to be part of the broader conversation about what telehealth will look like after the pandemic." The goal is to "help the health technology community and providers as they continue to refine their development of telehealth and enhance virtual care," he said. "This is going to be a whole-of-government and whole-of-industry approach," he added. "It's really up to us to make sure that, since we are at this early stage of implementation of telehealth, that we can avoid issues to make sure that this works as intended, and really ensure that it drives the efficiency and effectiveness and really improves healthcare for all Americans." There have already been some ripe areas for enforcement, said Vanlandingham. "We've had several large-scale national takedown actions involving telefraud schemes with sham or fake telehealth companies," he said. (One of them occurred just this week.) "No one is billing for those telehealth visits fraudulently. They're not submitting a telehealth claim to Medicare. Instead, sophisticated criminal organizations are partnering with telemarketing companies and sometimes unscrupulous doctors to essentially cold call Medicare beneficiaries, get them online with a doctor. And the doctor [asks] a few questions, and then will forge or prescribe expensive equipment that Medicare will pay for durable medical equipment like back braces, or even genetic testing that beneficiaries don't need." DME fraud has been around since Medicare started reimbursing for it, of course. "But for these schemes, what used to be, let's say, $30 or $40 million dollars, maybe $100 million dollars, you've really seen an explosion of exploiting this virtual care model to really bill for a large amount of fraud," said Vanlandingham. "One scheme went for $1.6 billion, with a B, of alleged fraud. So that's obviously very alarming." No one quite knows yet what "telehealth 2.0" will look like, he said. "But I think it is a good example that, as we expand telehealth, there are likely to be instances of large-scale criminal activity that takes advantage of this. And it's up to OIG to assess those risks, and inform policymakers and stakeholders of those risks, and then from those policymakers and stakeholders to adjust." OIG's job now, he said, is to decide "how we can better increase oversight and enforcement to make sure that whatever Congress, CMS and others should decide about how telehealth should be used as providers continue to adopt it, that we've got safeguards to maximize the benefit of telehealth for patients and providers." < Previous News Next News >

Q&A: How retail healthcare, telehealth trends could evolve in 2023 Emily Olsen December 16, 2022 Sanjula Jain, senior vice president of market strategy and chief research officer at Trilliant Health, discusses the future of virtual care and how emerging retail players will affect the industry. As another year shaken by the lingering COVID-19 pandemic ends, stakeholders are still exploring how virtual care trends that accelerated in 2020 will affect the healthcare industry long term. Though telehealth use spiked out of necessity during the early months and remains higher than pre-pandemic levels, utilization has slowed over the past two years. Meanwhile, big retail companies and pharmacies are offering more care options to patients. Sanjula Jain, senior vice president of market strategy and chief research officer at Trilliant Health, sat down with MobiHealthNews to discuss the future of virtual care, how big retail entrants will affect the industry, and the importance of care coordination between traditional health systems and emerging retail players. MobiHealthNews: What are some of your big takeaways from 2022 when you're thinking about telehealth, digital health and other tech-enabled care? Sanjula Jain: A big thing that I'm thinking a lot about is that patients aren't coming back to care, despite all the investments in more supply or access points, whether that be virtual care access points or new retail entrants or traditional urgent care. We've just had this huge mismatch between supply and demand. We're kind of post-vaccines; we have Americans returning to work to some extent. A lot of folks are going into an office a couple of days a week, folks are traveling, yet they're not going back to see their doctors. We've tried to make care more convenient and more accessible. And some of these new supply points are lower cost, and yet, they're still not engaging. I think there are many reasons for that. COVID scared away a lot of patients, and I think we're starting to see signs of more distrust in the healthcare system. And then cost and affordability, with a lot of the price pressures and inflation and recession discussions. That's going to continue to be a factor. There's a lot of health consequences for when patients don't actually engage in necessary healthcare. MHN: What do you think is the future of virtual care when you're looking at 2023 and beyond? Jain: The market for virtual care is a commoditized market. So, we're seeing that generally it's being used amongst a discrete subset of the population. And we have to think about, who are the individuals who like to use virtual care and what are they using it for? Primarily, as a health economist, I think a lot about substitute goods. We are seeing that virtual care is really only a substitute good for behavioral health. It's both a clinical and financial substitute, right? Clinically, having some distance between you and your provider in a behavioral health interaction is probably preferred when you're talking about your feelings and being very vulnerable. And there's no lab work or poking and prodding that actually needs to happen. So it's a viable clinical alternative. Financially, we've been talking a lot about payment parity. Because behavioral health interactions often don't need imaging and lab work, you're kind of making the same amount for an office visit that you are in a virtual care environment. For other use cases like primary care, we see that's not actually the case. The patient goes in for a virtual care visit, and then what really ends up happening is the physician says, "I need you to come in to get some imaging done or get some lab work done." The payment parity, despite the policy incentives to increase telehealth payment rates, it's not true parity. And so, that's why we don't see the full substitute effect. When you boil the ocean down, you see that the market for telehealth continues to be pretty discrete and concentrated to a handful of consumers. That's really where I think the future is, thinking about whether they will continue to use it. The data shows that, in the pandemic, we've seen this tapering. When Americans are given the option for in-person or virtual, they're still preferring to go in-person with that exception of behavioral health. So, I think the market is going to have to be more realistic about the total addressable market size in terms of discrete number of users, the number of visits per user, and then invest accordingly. I think that's a large part of why we've seen a lot of struggling amongst some digital health players, because I think they've overestimated the amount of utilization of virtual care modalities. But the number of discrete users just isn't up to par with what individuals had estimated it to be. MHN: Going back to those retail entrants, Amazon made a ton of news this year. Walgreens, CVS, Walmart — they're also boosting their care delivery operations. How do you think these moves will affect the healthcare industry overall? Jain: It ultimately comes down to, who is your customer or your consumer or patient persona? Who is Amazon actually going after? Who is their target patient population, and for what services? Amazon is really focusing on more low-acuity services, and health systems are particularly good at the higher acuity things like surgeries. What Amazon and other new entrants mean is that they provide the consumer with more care options. But it also creates a need to coordinate care better and create these really strong referral relationships. To go back to my earlier point about patients not coming back, of the patients we do see coming back, we're seeing them really seek out care in these low-acuity, commoditized care settings. They're going in for flu and strep, but they're not getting their screenings. It's going to be really important for groups like Amazon to coordinate with health systems to actually get patients to go follow up for those necessary services and figure out how to refer them out. MHN: How do you think the growth of these retail players will affect patients? Jain: I think it's a bit of a toss up. For some patients, they're going to view it as a better experience, because they can get what they want when they want it. But I think from a clinical perspective, it creates a lot of risks and challenges for the health of the patient. There really isn't someone owning the care or steering the patient through their healthcare journey. Have you gotten this lab workup? Have you gotten this mammogram? For some of these more retail players, it's consumer-directed. You can walk into urgent care and you can go to a telehealth visit, and it's really up to the consumer. But healthcare is complicated, and the average consumer may not have all the necessary information to go make those decisions. I think that there's a lot of positives to retail players in terms of catering to consumer preferences and providing care in a more convenient way. But for a lot of complex care, acute care — that every American is going to need at some point in their life — there is a little bit more fragmentation. MHN: Do you think there's an appetite among health systems to partner with Walgreens or CVS or Amazon and say, "If you see someone, send them to me when they need a cancer screening?" Jain: Absolutely. So, I actually just this week was with one of the health systems, talking to their leadership team. That's very much a conversation that is happening in the boardrooms — what is the right partnership structure with some of these new entrants and primary care providers? I think the challenge is, you could have those great partnerships. But ultimately, it's the consumer and the patient that's still having to make the decision. Are they going to follow up on those recommendations? Where are they going to go next? So, I think it's something that we're going to have to spend more time thinking about as an industry, how to coordinate that care for that patient over time, but with more choice and options in the market. See original article: https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/qa-how-retail-healthcare-telehealth-trends-could-evolve-2023 < Previous News Next News >

A staffing expert shows how telehealth is stepping in to fill the staffing shortage Bill Siwicki December 19, 2022 "As clinicians are passionate about patients receiving quality healthcare delivered in a timely manner, I see telehealth programs being the key to improving patient outcomes and the overall healthcare experience," he says. The staffing shortage is a huge challenge in healthcare today. Another challenge is finding a solution to this vexing problem. But telehealth may be becoming an emerging strategy to help fill in gaps within hospitals and health systems, contended Chris Franklin, president of LocumTenens.com, a self-service job board and a full-service physician and advanced practice recruitment agency working in high-demand medical specialties. Healthcare IT News sat down with Franklin to discuss changes occurring in healthcare staffing, what he calls hybrid staffing strategies, and the results of a new LocumTenens.com survey. Q. Overall, what changes are you seeing occurring in healthcare staffing? A. The changes we've seen in the broader economy regarding contingent employment over the past three years are incredibly impactful on healthcare staffing. There are a few key numbers that tell the story. There currently are 3.5 million fewer workers in the U.S. than there were two years ago. Since February 2020, job openings have gone up by 50%, while total employment in the U.S. has gone slightly down. Because demand is outpacing the available supply, workers are demanding not just increases in pay, but also more choice and control over when, how and where they work. This is incredibly true in healthcare, based on every indicator we watch. New data shows more than 300,000 healthcare workers dropped out of the workforce in the last two years. Physicians report they are choosing early retirement or leaving the full-time practice of medicine for other kinds of work, in and outside of our industry. Nurses on the frontline have made the news due to the difficulties they have experienced, and also because of the freedoms they are newly experiencing due to the uptick in travel nursing. According to a 2021 study from Health Affairs, nearly 100,000 nurses exited the profession last year – most of them under the age of 50. Another 32% of nurses have said they may leave the profession. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates we'll need to fill nearly 200,000 nurse vacancies a year until 2030. Patients are sicker than they have ever been. Over the past year, nearly every hospital has seen increases in patient acuity, largely driven by care that was delayed during the [COVID-19] pandemic. And chronic disease and obesity continue to be primary drivers of healthcare consumption in the U.S. Even though it's been on the horizon for years, the impact of a big population of aging baby boomers – the oldest turned 75 this year – is finally here, and demand for healthcare is about to increase dramatically as a result. Burnout also is at an all-time high. A recent survey from MGMA and Jackson Physician Search highlights a sobering pair of statistics: Nearly two-thirds of physicians (65%) report they are experiencing burnout in 2022, up four percentage points from the 2021 study. Of those experiencing burnout, more than one in three physicians (35%) said their levels of burnout significantly increased in 2022. All of this points to a big, industrywide shake-up, and we are seeing first-hand that traditional workforce staffing models are no longer working, especially in healthcare. What's emerging is something very different – hybrid models that anticipate both permanent and contingent workers, an uptick in models that combine site-based care with a robust telehealth presence, an increase in APP staffing overall, and in general, a growing commitment to giving providers access to the kind of work-life balance they are desperately seeking. Q. You say you are seeing a hybrid staffing strategy that includes elements of locum tenens, more advanced practice providers and more telehealth coverage. Please elaborate on this. A. Healthcare leaders are looking for new and creative solutions now more than ever – and all amidst this backdrop of healthcare workforce shortages. We have seen first-hand the impact the gig economy is directly having on the healthcare workforce and know the biggest concerns for healthcare facilities are attracting talent, retaining talent, and avoiding or mitigating burnout. To help clinicians' desire to achieve a more viable work-life balance, healthcare leaders are evolving their hiring models to reflect a new appreciation for the flexibility that hybrid staffing models represent. Solely relying on traditional staffing models and solutions just won't work anymore. Through staffing innovation, hospitals and healthcare organizations are actively seeking options to improve access to care with more sustainable models. Healthcare staffing is complex and there's never a one-size-fits-all solution, but we are seeing an increase in interest in alternative models of staffing, including a growing use of locum tenens staff and improving patient access to care with advanced practice providers (APPs) and telehealth expansion. Awareness of and interest in locum tenens are at an all-time high for both healthcare organizations and clinicians. People are actually taking their own well-being into account in terms of their employment, opting into contingent work as a way to manage their levels of stress and burnout. We had a locum tenens physician tell an audience at a recent conference: "If you have burnout in locums, you are not doing it right." There's no doubt flexibility of locum tenens offers a desirable outcome on what physicians are wanting out of life. According to the recent survey: Nearly 90% of healthcare facilities already use locum tenens staffing. Nearly 57% of facilities that have not used locum tenens staffing in the past are planning to use it in the next year. According to a recent survey we conducted on innovation and flexibility in staffing, when most administrators consider locum tenens, they most commonly think about onsite physician care. Data shows hospitals utilize onsite locum tenens more than three times as often as telehealth, but that is starting to change. Facilities that were previously reliant on onsite are now embracing telehealth. COVID-19 expedited this adoption, as hospitals looked beyond traditional models to meet their patients' needs. In some cases, hospitals are taking a flexible, hybrid approach that integrates telehealth and onsite care, providing the best of both worlds and delivering value to patients. Additionally, the use of APPs in combination with physicians as a strategy is growing, with 73.9% affirmatively responding to the question, "Do you plan to expand APP coverage?" Q. Your company recently did a survey of hospital administrators to get a clearer view of the challenges in today's landscape. What did you learn as it relates to telehealth? A. Our recent survey results – which are detailed in the Innovation & Flexibility: Journey to Sustainable Healthcare Report – revealed that hospital administrators have strong feedback when it comes to managing today's challenging landscape. With regard to how it relates to telehealth, more facilities are using telehealth than ever before. COVID-19 expedited this adoption, but over the coming year, most hospitals expect to expand their use of telehealth even further – there is no turning back. Patients across the board now are more comfortable using telehealth as the COVID-19 pandemic drove a surge in virtual visits, including those who have historically hesitated to use technology. Traditionally, psychiatric services dominated locum tenens telehealth services, with behavioral health accounting for 79% of telehealth services for LocumTenens.com. However, utilization has started to shift as hospitals look at other specialties, including oncology, cardiology and physiatry. By expanding telehealth offerings, facilities can expand access to care and reach more patients in new locations. Over the past year, many facilities have been able to deliver a higher level of specialty care to satellite or remote locations through telehealth. Going forward, better reconciling reimbursements to align with the level of care provided in a telehealth setting will lead to broader adoption. Q. Where do you see the telehealth component of staffing in five years? A. The feedback we have gotten shows that more than half (60%) of those surveyed plan to expand telehealth. Through innovation, healthcare providers will continue to adapt to flexibility and improved access to care. These flexible solutions create a more sustainable model to provide quality care to patients and their communities. As clinicians are passionate about patients receiving quality healthcare delivered in a timely manner, I see telehealth programs being the key to improving patient outcomes and the overall healthcare experience. The beauty of telehealth is that it provides access to a qualified provider at any time. For example, we have a client that provides psychiatric services across the country. During a busy day, a patient presented who was experiencing domestic violence trauma, and she wasn't comfortable talking with a male doctor. The problem was there were only male psychiatrists on call at her presenting hospital. The hospital contacted our team, and we in turn reached out to two privileged and credentialed female providers that weren't on-call that day. Although one was heading out to attend a wedding, she accepted the assignment to immediately provide care for this patient. So, even though this psychiatrist worked five states away from the hospital, she was able to provide care because of the access to telehealth. The result: The patient received the "right care" that she needed at the right time with an experienced provider. Follow Bill's HIT coverage on LinkedIn: Bill Siwicki Email the writer: bsiwicki@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/staffing-expert-shows-how-telehealth-stepping-fill-staffing-shortage < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth: How Asynchronous Communication Creates Provider Efficiencies Many Roth, Health Leaders April 2021 Presbyterian Healthcare Services reduces online "visits" to two minutes per encounter versus 15 to 18 minutes for real-time virtual visits. At the beginning of 2020, physicians and consumers had not yet fully embraced the concept of virtual video visits; many were skeptical about the ability to deliver care effectively in this manner. Yet after the pandemic forced the adoption of virtual visits, perceptions and usage forever changed. Today, asynchronous communication faces the same hurdles. Providers and patients don't understand how it works and question its value. "It's a technology whose time has not yet come," says Oliver Lignell, vice president of virtual health at health system consultancy AVIA, which helps members accelerate their digital transformation initiatives. "It's not yet mainstream, but it should be." Presbyterian Healthcare Services, an Albuquerque, New Mexico–based nonprofit integrated healthcare delivery system, began investigating this approach to healthcare four years ago. "It's been incredibly effective," says Ries Robinson, MD, senior vice president and chief innovation officer. Between the system's nine hospitals and a health plan it offers, the organization serves a third of the state's residents. With a shortage of practitioners in New Mexico, and 70% of the care it provides covered by capitated contracts, Presbyterian needed to find a way to operate more efficiently. Asynchronous communication worked. Last year, a designated group of employed urgent care physicians handled 50,000 asynchronous visits for low-acuity care, and spent an average of two minutes on each encounter—far less than the 15–18 minutes it takes to conduct a typical video call. This form of care does not occur in real time. Depending on the platform used, a patient completes and submits an online form via secure email, text, or an app, detailing his or her complaint and relevant history. A physician receives the information, processes it, and sends a response back to the patient with instructions and prescriptions, if necessary. Presbyterian physicians usually respond within 15 minutes; some health systems using asynchronous communication allow up to 24 hours. There is no direct audio or video exchange with the patient unless the physician thinks it is warranted and escalates the encounter. ASYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION OFFERS MULTIPLE ADVANTAGES Asynchronous communication offers some distinct advantages to health systems, say the experts. Synchronous care, which includes video, audio, and in-person visits, comes with an Achilles' heel: Regardless of venue, the physician spends about the same amount of one-to-one time with the patient, says digital medicine expert Ashish Atreja, MD, MPH, chief information and digital health officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California. "The real growth you're going to see in value," he says, "is the ability to deliver one-to-many care." Asynchronous communication is a step in that direction. "One of the most important things asynchronous communication does is help scale response," says Ann Mond Johnson, MBA, MHA, CEO of the American Telemedicine Association. In addition, because patients can use it with a phone or the internet, it can address issues of access, she says. Robinson says the SmartExam™ platform Presbyterian is using, made by Bright.md, includes features that appeal to its physicians. It automatically enters chart-ready SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan) notes into the electronic medical record (EMR), creates billing files, and manages patient follow-up communications. "It's extremely elegant," says Robinson. SmartExam's design, which asks patients questions in an interview-style exchange, and advanced logic has earned the trust of the physicians who use it, he says. "I remember the first time [physicians] said, 'I trust it'; I thought that was kind of a funny term to use," Robinson recalls. When he asked the doctors what they meant, they explained that the tool is thorough and consistent in a way humans cannot replicate. "That's what the providers really like." Even the best medical assistant, he says, may vary in how they ask questions of patients, forget to include certain details, or package assessments differently. HOW TO CALCULATE COST SAVINGS While Robinson says the health system has detailed financial models that justify the cost of the platform, he declines to disclose the figures, but notes, "It hasn't been an astronomical investment by any stretch of the imagination." Expenses include a one-time cost for EMR integration, ongoing charges for using the platform on a per-patient per-use basis, and marketing and promotion. He also provides formulas to calculate estimated cost savings. They include: Better utilization of providers' time and related staffing expenses, by reducing each of 50,000 encounters from 15–18 minutes for a video encounter to two minutes for an asynchronous visit. More appropriate ER usage. Out of 50,000 patients, 8% were redirected away from the ER. This figure is based on patient survey responses indicating they would have visited the ER had the platform not been available. With an average ER visit costing more than $500, says Robinson, "there's a significant savings." Reduced workload at urgent care facilities. "Just assume 20,000 [of these patients] would have gone to an urgent care that we own," he says. The time and expense of urgent care staffing is used to calculate the savings. Patients also save money, says AVIA's Lignell. Nationally, he says the typical cost for an asynchronous visit is about $20, and many health systems offer these visits for free. This compares to a national average cost of $50 for a video visit and $125 for an in-person visit. THE POTENTIAL TO GROW BEYOND LOW-ACUITY CARE There is one additional element that has contributed to the success of asynchronous visits for Presbyterian: a digital front door. Patients visit the pres.today webpage, enter their condition and insurance information, and are automatically directed to the appropriate level of care, one of which includes the option for online visits (using asynchronous care). Because of the asynchronous initiative's success, the health system is expanding its use beyond low-acuity care. Future plans involve developing new uses for the platform, capturing symptoms and history to create greater efficiencies for video visits and even in-person care. "We have gotten religion around the idea of capturing as much information as you can in a sophisticated manner before the visit," says Robinson. "You maximize the quality of care and the efficiency of the visit. We're taking that idea and pushing it forward in multiple avenues of care here at Presbyterian." Value-based care will drive further adoption of these models, says Lignell. "The advantages from a total cost of care standpoint are huge," he says. "It's much less expensive to deliver care this way." While the bulk of growth has been in low-acuity primary care, he says asynchronous care is now being explored in specialty and higher-acuity care, as well as in e-consults between providers. "The asynchronous model is proving to be incredibly efficient for health systems," says Lignell. "That's one of the reasons why it has so much promise." Source: https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/innovation/telehealth-how-asynchronous-communication-creates-provider-efficiencies < Previous News Next News >

DOJ Prosecutes Several Telemedicine Fraud Cases Center for Connected Health Policy May 2021 Department of Justice is currently on an offensive against telemedicine fraud According to an article in the National Law Review, the Department of Justice is currently on an offensive against telemedicine fraud. The article cites the following DOJ operations as evidence of the current crack down on telemedicine: *Operation Brace Yourself targeting an international fraud ring that defrauded $1 billion from Medicare for unnecessary devices. *A series of telemedicine fraud prosecutions that occurred in 2020 that found more than $1.5 billion in fraudulent Medicare billing. *On April 22, 2021 the latest crackdown came to light with charges for the owners of orthotic brace suppliers and some marketing companies for a $65 million nationwide kickback and bribery conspiracy. The scheme involved call centers soliciting customers to accept braces even though they didn’t need them and charging Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare. The telemedicine companies involved were paid illegal kickback and bribes for their doctors signing the brace orders and swearing to their medical necessity. These types of incidents are what makes some regulators warry of telehealth. With the increased widespread use of telehealth due to the pandemic, incidents of fraud will likely increase for telehealth. The key will be to ensure that the bad actions of a few don’t interfere with a modality of care that increases access and quality care for so many. Read the full National Law Review article for more information on these fraud cases. Full National Law Review article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/doj-telemedicine-offensive-pushes-forward-new-charges < Previous News Next News >

HHS Awards Nearly $55 Million to Increase Virtual Health Care Through Community Health Centers Dr. Maheu June 3, 2022 Virtual care has been a game-changer for patients, especially during the pandemic… This funding will help health centers leverage the latest technology and innovations to expand access to quality primary care for underserved communities. Today’s announcement reflects the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to advancing health equity and putting essential health care within reach for all Americans. n February, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), awarded nearly $55 million to 29 HRSA-funded health centers. Funding was earmarked to increase virtual health care access and quality for underserved populations through telehealth, remote patient monitoring, digital health tools for patients, and health information technology platforms. This telehealth funding builds on over $7.3 billion in American Rescue Plan funding invested in community health centers over the previous year to help reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health centers quickly expanded their use of virtual health care to maintain access to essential primary care services during the pandemic. The number of health centers offering virtual visits grew from 592 in 2019 to 1,362 in 2022, an increase of 130 percent. The February telehealth funding will reportedly be used to enable health centers to sustain an expanded level of virtual health care and identify and implement new digital strategies. HRSA Administrator Carole Johnson added: Today’s awards will help ensure that new ways to deliver primary care are reaching the communities that need it most… Our funding will help health centers continue to expand their virtual work while maintaining their vital in-person services in communities across the country. The press release also explained that the more than 1,400 HRSA-supported health centers in this country serve as a national source of primary care for at-risk communities. They are community-based and patient-directed organizations that deliver affordable, accessible, and high-quality medical, dental, and behavioral health services to nearly 29 million patients each year. As of late January, health centers have delivered over 19.2 million vaccine doses, with 68 percent going to racial or ethnic minority patients. More than 90 percent of health center patients are individuals or families living at or below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (about $55,000 per year for a family of four in most states) and approximately 62 percent are racial/ethnic minorities. For more information: https://telehealth.org/hhs-awards-nearly-55-million-to-increase-virtual-health-care-through-community-health-centers/?smclient=f760e669-8538-11ec-83c8-18cf24ce389f&utm_source=salesmanago&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=default < Previous News Next News >

Could Telehealth Worsen Inequity? 'Not Under My Watch,' Says HHS Sec. Becerra Kat Jercich June 2021 Top health officials from HHS and VA have signaled their ongoing support for telemedicine in the long term, but also want to ensure that "technology is being used properly." In recent public appearances, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough both indicated their support for telemedicine in the long term. Even as states have moved to enact their own laws aimed at telehealth expansion, questions have persisted about a federal response. Becerra emphasizes equity in technology "We are absolutely supportive of efforts to give us the authority to be able to utilize telehealth in greater ways," said Becerra during a Washington Post live event earlier this week. "We want to make sure that we don't leave anyone behind … so that telehealth should be available to all Americans universally," Becerra continued. At the Post event, Becerra reiterated that the Biden administration is supportive of recent moves in Congress that would safeguard access to telemedicine after the COVID-19 pandemic. Becerra also emphasized the importance of making technology available to everyone, not just those with means. "That includes, of course, making sure broadband, and quality broadband, is out there for all communities," he said. When asked about the danger of telehealth exacerbating inequities – which many advocates have warned against – Beceerra said, "not under my watch." "We're going to do everything we can to include everyone. It should make no difference what Zip code you live in, in America," he said. "You should have access to whatever technologies we as a government through our taxpayer dollars make available, and so that's why we want to make sure we do this the right way and that there's accountability on both ends of the system," he continued. He also referred to concerns around spending and overutilization, which have dogged discussions of virtual care. "We want to make sure that these providers are providing a service that might not have been available had we not had telehealth, but that it also results in better quality services and treatment, because we don't want to be billed for things that don't result in better health for Americans," he said. When it came to interstate licensure, another sticky proposition, Becerra called it an "accountability issue." Though he avoided directly weighing in on whether doctors should be allowed to work outside their states, he seemed to lean against the issue. "The farther away you go from the direct connection between patient and provider, the more difficult it will be to try to provide for the accountability, quickly and fairly, for the patient," he said. "So if your doctor is 30 miles away, and you live in rural America, we can track down that doctor 30 miles away from you. But if your doctor was 3,000 miles away from you, that's a tougher sell for a consumer who is now trying to get accountability for a service that wasn't properly provided," he continued. When it came to broader technologies – beyond telehealth – Becerra pointed to the role digital health tools can play in strengthening U.S. public health infrastructure. "COVID-19 showed us where the holes are in our public health system. That's what happens when you have the most technologically advanced healthcare in the world, but it's not evenly distributed, and as a result, we had pockets in America where COVID was devastating," he said. "And technology helps us close those gaps faster, but once again, we want to make sure that technology is our friend and technology is being used properly, so accountability will be so important," he continued. Telehealth options are a hit with vets Meanwhile, VA Secretary McDonough appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee this week to offer an update on veterans' use of telemedicine. "There were almost 230,000 visits at the end of February this year," said McDonough, as reported by the Military Times. "Nearly 2 million vets have had one or more episodes of video care. That tells us that there’s massive demand." McDonough noted that the department is working on addressing the reluctance of some staffers to pivot to virtual care. "There’s going to continue to need to be things that are done in person, but I think as a system we recognize the huge efficiency gains and and huge satisfaction gains which come from vets spending less time traveling to our facilities while still getting good care," he said. "We want to maintain it, because it’s ease of access for vets who don’t need to be seen in person," he said. The VA has faced scrutiny in other digital health arenas recently, with an Office of Inspector General audit finding that the Veterans Health Administration needs improvement when it comes to integrating non-VA medical data to veteran's electronic health records. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said he'll encourage VA leaders to preserve the new telehealth options and explore avenues for Congress to enable them. "There’s going to be a tendency to want to snap back to pre-pandemic times, and I just think there’s going to be a patient revolt,” said Schatz, who praised telehealth in a recent interview for HIMSS TV. "Ten years ago, if you told someone to interact with their clinician via iPhone, it would be an insult. Now, if you can’t do that, that’s an insult," Schatz said. Source: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/could-telehealth-worsen-inequity-not-under-my-watch-says-hhs-sec-becerra < Previous News Next News >

Commentary: Rethinking the Impact of Audio-Only Visits on Health Equity by Lori Uscher-Pines and Lucy Schulson December 17, 2021 New pandemic-era flexibility that allowed audio-only health visits to be routinely reimbursed as telehealth may be leading to substandard care for those it was meant to serve. Prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, audio-only visits were rarely included in definitions of telehealth and seldom reimbursed. As clinicians were granted numerous flexibilities to deliver various care modalities at the onset of the pandemic, telephone calls were elevated to the status of reimbursable audio-only visits. Although audio-only visits were used across the health care system, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that provide primary care and behavioral health services to millions of Medicaid and uninsured patients were particularly likely to deliver audio-only visits in the spring of 2020. They were also more likely to rely on them as the pandemic progressed (PDF) because of patient and clinic barriers to video telehealth and a supportive policy environment. Almost two years into the pandemic, FQHCs in multiple states are reimbursed at the same Prospective Payment System (PPS) (PDF) rate for in-person, video, and audio-only visits. The new flexibility to deliver audio-only visits was a welcome change. It was widely recognized that, due to the digital divide, audio-only visits would play an essential role in maintaining access to care for many populations. An audio-only visit was far better than the alternative at the time: no visit at all. Currently, experts who call for the permanent reimbursement of audio-only visits cite concerns for the underserved. They argue that given the widespread lack of broadband, limited digital literacy, and reduced access to devices, requiring video visits may leave certain patients behind and exacerbate inequities in health care. While this argument had merit in the first year of the pandemic, the risk benefit calculation of audio-only visits has changed, and it is increasingly important to protect patients from potentially lower-quality audio-only visits. We discuss how ongoing delivery of audio-only visits can reduce the quality of care among low-income populations and contribute to health disparities. At the same time, the reliance on audio-only visits may be preventing innovation that could improve video and in-person health care visits for all populations. Ongoing delivery of audio-only visits can reduce the quality of care among low-income populations and contribute to health disparities. Share on Twitter In the spring of 2020, audio-only visits were a lifeline at a time of uncertainty and helped address a critical need when the delivery system was desperate for quick solutions. Numerous data sources showed high use of audio-only visits in this period (11–48 percent of visits), particularly among low-income and older adults. Even though estimates of audio-only use from claims data were high, they were likely underestimates of the total number of visits being delivered. This is the case because of challenges and inconsistencies with coding telehealth visits and the tendency for scheduled video visits to become audio-only visits when technical difficulties arise. For example, using claims data, Medicare estimated that one in three telehealth visits in the spring of 2020 were audio-only visits. However, data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey showed that the majority of beneficiaries (56 percent) who had telehealth visits reported that they were exclusively audio-only. The Variation in Use Across Settings As the COVID-19 pandemic continued, audio-only visits retreated in some settings but remained dominant in others. Studies of the commercially insured demonstrated that as in-person visits rebounded in 2021, telehealth visits in general, and audio-only visits in particular, declined and play an increasingly minor role. In contrast, in the summer of 2021, 32 percent of FQHCs (PDF) across the United States reported that the majority of their total visits continued to be audio-only. A study of 43 large FQHC networks in California demonstrated ongoing, high-volume delivery (PDF) of audio-only visits in primary care despite receiving technical assistance and funding to grow their telehealth programs. Quality Concerns with Audio-Only Visits Audio-only visits can increase access to care, but this key advantage may come at the expense of quality. Evidence of the quality of audio-only visits in primary care is scant but concerning. First, clinicians report that audio-only visits are not as effective. Challenges range from the relatively minor (for example, not being able to assess facial expressions) to major issues (for example, not being able to verify the patient's identity). Studies have shown that clinicians can miss visual cues and struggle with establishing rapport with patients, and visits are shorter. Additionally, patients report lower satisfaction and comprehension rates. Even as new data emerge about the quality of audio-only visits, it is clear that some patients, including many commercially insured patients, are largely getting more evidence-based, tested services (in-person and video visits) while low-income patients are getting an untested service. Furthermore, cervical cancer screening rates, child weight assessment and counseling, and depression screening and follow-up at FQHCs declined with telehealth (predominantly audio-only) use. Drivers of Audio-Only Visits The variation in audio-only use across different populations is likely not fully explained by differences in which conditions are clinically appropriate for audio-only visits or by patient readiness for video visits. Rather, reimbursement, provider preferences, and organizational priorities are playing a significant role in determining how many in-person visit slots there are, and by extension, which patients get audio-only, video, or in-person visits. In October 2021, 33 percent of FQHC visits in California and 24 percent in Arizona, two states that reimburse FQHCs the full PPS for audio-only visits, were conducted virtually. Contrast that with South Dakota (a state that stopped reimbursing for audio-only visits in its Medicaid program as of July 2021 (PDF)), which only saw 5 percent of visits conducted virtually in the same time period. Although the digital divide is a significant problem in the United States that requires focused attention, it cannot fully explain the variation. A recent paper in Medical Care showed that provider behavior and organizational factors, as opposed to patient digital barriers, are playing the largest role in audio-only visits. Sixty-six percent of Medicare beneficiaries who were exclusively offered audio-only visits during the pandemic had access to telehealth-compatible devices and to the internet. Creating Conditions for High-Quality Telehealth Care At present, 22 state Medicaid programs allow for reimbursement for audio-only visits, with nine states adding reimbursement to permanent policy since the spring of 2021. The trend is to increase access to audio-only visits in the interest of health equity. However, telehealth experts have pointed out that failing to rein in audio-only visits risks escalating costs and creating a two-tiered system (PDF) in which affluent patients get video and in-person visits and low-income patients get telephone calls. It may be that this two-tiered system is already coming to fruition and is now harder to justify in the name of emergency response than it was in the spring of 2020. In March 2021, we argued that reimbursement of audio-only visits should continue for several years beyond the public health emergency to avoid exacerbating disparities in access. However, given emerging data about the prominence of audio-only visits in low-income communities, we now have concerns about this approach. Generous parity reimbursement for audio-only visits may be creating perverse incentives to deliver substandard care to the most underserved. It also may be stifling innovation that could be occurring in the delivery of video and in-person visits. Generous parity reimbursement for audio-only visits may be creating perverse incentives to deliver substandard care to the most underserved. Share on Twitter The patients who have challenges accessing video visits are the same patients who face barriers accessing in-person care. Instead of offering scheduled audio-only visits, health systems could be incentivized to address the social determinants of health that create barriers to higher-quality visits. For example, they could partner with community groups to provide transportation to appointments, provide access to low-cost electronic devices, invest in accessible telehealth platforms, create telehealth access points in the community, and train telehealth navigators. Audio-only visits are a powerful tool for emergency response, and over time researchers and clinicians will identify situations in which audio-only visits alone, or as a component of hybrid care models, can support comparable care. But in the coming months, it may be time to consider limiting audio-only visits in the pursuit of health equity. Lori Uscher-Pines is a senior policy researcher and Lucy Schulson is an associate physician policy researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. This commentary was first published on December 17, 2012 on Health Affairs Blog. Copyright ©2021 Health Affairs by Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc. Commentary gives RAND researchers a platform to convey insights based on their professional expertise and often on their peer-reviewed research and analysis. < Previous News Next News >

Prescribing via Telehealth Post-Pandemic Center for Connected Health Policy July 2021 Another result of telehealth policies being in flux is uncertainty around the long-term landscape in terms of prescribing controlled substances post-pandemic. Another result of telehealth policies being in flux is uncertainty around the long-term landscape in terms of prescribing controlled substances post-pandemic. Existing federal law, mainly the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, restricts the prescribing of controlled substances via telemedicine except in very specific and limiting circumstances. Given these federal restrictions, this may be a telehealth policy barrier states have trouble tackling completely on their own. There is a potential pathway for the prescribing of certain controlled substances without an in-person exam post-PHE, which is if the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) creates the telemedicine special registry they were mandated to establish rules for by October 2019 but never did. Thus, the specific medications and the criteria to qualify for the registry is yet to be seen. In the first official mention of the long awaited regulations since December 2019, last month the DEA said in response to comments on a recently proposed (yet unrelated) rule about narcotics: “Although these comments regarding telemedicine special registration are beyond the scope of this rule, DEA understands commenters' frustration with the delay. DEA intends to promulgate regulations for the telemedicine special registration in the near future.” In addition, a few of the current federal bills CCHP is tracking that would alter the Ryan Haight Act include: * S. 445/HR 1384 – Makes exceptions for narcotic drugs in schedules II, IV, or V for community health aides or community health practitioners prescribing to an individual for treatment or detoxification * S. 340 – Allows for a telehealth evaluation for schedule III or IV drugs under certain circumstance * S 1457 – Similar language to S. 340 is in Sec. 205 of bill. CCHP will continue to track this issue and provide updates as they occur. Existing federal laws around prescribing can be found on CCHP’s website through both the policy finder tool and the pending federal legislation page at https://www.cchpca.org/federal/pending-legislation/. < Previous News Next News >

The intersection of remote patient monitoring and AI Bill Siwicki October 25, 2022 Robin Farmanfarmaian, a Silicon Valley AI entrepreneur and author, explains how artificial intelligence can boost the efficacy of RPM and help democratize healthcare. Robin Farmanfarmaian is a Silicon Valley-based entrepreneur working in technology and artificial intelligence. She has been involved with more than 20 early-stage biotech and healthcare startups, including ones working on medical devices and digital health. With more than 180 speaking engagements in 15 countries, she has educated audiences on many aspects of technology intersecting healthcare, including artificial intelligence and the shift in healthcare delivery to the patient's home. She has written four books, including "The Patient as CEO: How Technology Empowers the Healthcare Consumer" and, most recently, "How AI Can Democratize Healthcare: The Rise in Digital Care." Healthcare IT News spoke with Farmanfarmaian to discuss where AI is impacting remote patient monitoring today and how AI can democratize healthcare. Q. Where is remote patient monitoring today? Where do you see RPM five and 10 years from now? A. Remote patient monitoring is still in the first five years of adoption and integration into the healthcare system, and the pandemic accelerated this trend by illustrating the need and value of RPM. There are many clinical-grade devices now that patients can buy or use to measure and monitor various vital signs, including EKG, heart rate, heart rate variability, blood pressure and blood oxygen level. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is one of the organizations that sets the standard of care in the U.S. healthcare system, and CMS launched CPT codes for remote physiological monitoring more than four years ago. CMS has expanded coverage and specificity over the past few years with additional and updated CPT codes. In 2022, CMS launched CPT codes for remote therapeutic monitoring (RTM). These codes cover RTM for respiratory and musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, such as remote physical therapy and COPD inhaler tracking. Considering that most of healthcare happens in a patient's daily life, not the occasional clinic visit, this is a big step forward toward helping patients use their treatments in the best possible way on a daily basis. Many mainstream corporations have launched their own wearables that have cleared the FDA, blurring the lines between healthcare companies and consumer-facing tech companies. Apple, Amazon, Google and Samsung are some of the giants that can shift consumer habits on a national scale, and they all have launched mainstream wearables. For instance, the Apple Watch has outsold the entire Swiss watch industry multiple years in a row, and the device has an EKG monitor that has cleared the FDA for use with people over the age of 22 and with no history of arrhythmia. This trend is great news because many people may already be tracking something about their health, whether that's blood pressure monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring or even a simple accelerometer for step count. That makes it significantly more likely a patient will continue to use the device if their healthcare professional recommends it and has access to the data. In 10 years, remote patient monitoring will be mainstream, and likely reimbursed by all the major payers. We're already seeing that RPM has the ability to catch hospital readmissions days before they happen. The healthcare industry is experiencing a revolution in vital-sign measurement devices, with many companies innovating on ways to collect vital signs. New innovations include taking vital signs using a smartwatch, using just a smartphone or laptop camera, breathalyzer devices for standard vital signs like BP and Sp02, sensors in clothing, epidermal sensors and subcutaneous sensors. Within 10 years, tracking vital signs will be done in ways that are more seamless and effortless for the patient, such as subcutaneous sensors that last five years. Eversense already has an FDA-cleared implantable sensor for continuous glucose monitoring that passively records glucose levels 24/7. Q. How did artificial intelligence first come into the picture with RPM? What was the connection? A. Some of these new FDA-cleared devices measure vital signs continuously, which means they are collecting thousands of data points a day on each patient. BiolntelliSense has a medical-grade rechargeable sensor that sticks to the chest and passively measures more than 20 vital signs, recording 1,440 measurements a day. Humans don't have the ability to analyze and interpret thousands of data points every day for every patient – which is why these clinical-grade wearables and sensors have an AI software component to manage, monitor, analyze and interpret the thousands of daily data points per patient. The AI software typically flags or alerts the healthcare team and patient when the vital signs are outside predetermined ranges, personalized to the individual. While it is still early in this trend, there are examples of new innovations that only exist because of continuous, personalized data collection. January AI uses the previous three days of data from a continuous glucose monitor, combined with vital-sign data, to predict glucose response in real time to individual foods, educating the patient at the point of the decision-making. This helps manage diabetes in a more personalized and predictive way, instead of the standard reactive way diabetes is currently treated. But January AI isn't just for people with diabetes. They work with athletes, people with pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and people who just want to be as healthy as they can be. This education in real time doesn't just assume the standard diet for diabetes is right for every individual or that there is any one healthy diet that works for everyone. People don't react the same way to food as others, or even to themselves. Everyone has a unique glucose response to food based on many factors, including that day's activity level, sleep, amount of fiber, stress, weight, age and many more data points. AI-based software, combined with RPM, allows personalized care 24/7. Q. Today, how does AI work with RPM to improve patient care and outcomes? A. When RPM is used for serious conditions, it can be the difference between life and death. VitalConnect ran a study on their single-lead EKG VitalPatch and was able to predict hospital readmission for cardiac patients 6.5 days in advance. Alacrity Care is working on RPM for oncology that combines vital signs taken with FDA-cleared devices including the Omron blood pressure watch and the Oxitone pulse-oximeter watch with a daily oncology practitioner check-in and blood labs taken in the home. This is to catch serious, life-threatening problems such as neutropenia, sepsis and cytokine storm days before a patient with cancer is in serious medical trouble. Catching these three conditions early can be the difference between life and death. New AI-based software tools are clearing the FDA, including one earlier this year for TytoCare that analyzes lung sounds for the patient and the remote clinician using a connected stethoscope in the home. There are other companies working on sensors in clothing that are covered by Medicare. SirenCare has socks available by prescription that monitor the temperature on the bottom of the foot. For patients with diabetes, a hotspot on the bottom of the foot could lead to a skin ulcer, which could eventually lead to an amputation if the wound doesn't heal. With access to the continuous data, the software can alert the patient and clinician when there is a problem so it can be treated before the skin breaks. The promise and goal of RPM is to keep patients safely in their homes and catch problems early, before they become serious or emergency issues. Q. You have a new book out with Michael Ferro, "How AI Can Democratize Healthcare." How does that theme fit in with the combination of AI and RPM? A. When dealing with AI, life begins at 1 billion data points. There are some major problems with traditional healthcare datasets that exist today to train software. Most healthcare data is locked into silos, whether that is the EHR, faxes, the payer or in clinical notes. In fact, when I get lab results from my physician through the hospital's patient portal, it is uploaded as a scanned fax and saved as a PDF that is not machine readable, and sometimes, not even human readable. While we are seeing interoperability move forward, there is still a long way to go. The typical healthcare data is collected on people at one point in time, such as their annual physical or if they are hospitalized. Frequently, that means the data doesn't include an individual's baseline, taken in their daily environment. It also means that most of the clinical-grade vital-sign data is on people who are already sick enough to be in a hospital. By shifting the data collection to the patient's daily life, RPM has the ability to collect clinical-grade data when people are in all stages of health and at all ages. When collected continuously in machine-readable databases, once RPM is more fully adopted, those databases have the ability to dwarf EHR data from a hospital or health system. That is the type of training data that can give healthcare a much deeper look and understanding of normal vital signs across ages, genders and genetics. RPM helps democratize healthcare in a way never before possible. Many people don't live within easy access to a doctor or clinic. Trying to get to a clinic during their open hours can be next to impossible for some people due to many factors – from not being able to take off work, school, finding transportation, distance, childcare and other barriers, to traveling to a physical clinic. Even for established patients, specialist doctors are frequently booked out one to three months in advance, which gives a medical problem time to advance and potentially get much worse. That, in turn, lowers the odds of a successful outcome when and if that patient is ever seen and treated by a healthcare professional. Instead of trying to physically get to a clinic, RPM can be used to determine when someone needs to see a healthcare professional and can make a virtual care visit much more effective. The best healthcare is the healthcare that actually gets done. RPM enables passive healthcare in someone's daily environment, 24/7. Twitter: @SiwickiHealthIT Email the writer: bsiwicki@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/intersection-remote-patient-monitoring-and-ai?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=womeninhit < Previous News Next News >

Extended Reality for Telehealth The technologies enabling a more fully immersive telehealth experience of the future Jordan Owens September 20, 2022 There has been a digital transformation in telehealth in the form of remote meetings and video consultations. Just a few years ago, it was considered innovative to meet with a patient over video: now it’s seen as routine. Necessity can be a catalyst for innovation and telehealth is now here to stay. But that doesn’t mean the industry has finished growing, changing — or expanding. Extended reality (XR) is a catch-all term used to describe the many and various ways that technology can enhance what we perceive with our senses: how the real and virtual worlds can combine to extend perception, observation, and — in the case of telehealth — patient care and diagnosis. Using extended reality tools like augmented reality headsets and wearable devices, healthcare workers can diagnose with better accuracy, treat patients faster, and provide an optimal level of care — even when the patient is on the other side of the country (or the world). Some of the innovative ways that people are combining telehealth and extended reality include: Wearable technology to enhance remote patient monitoring You enter a remote telehealth session with a patient. You ask them what seems to be the issue. They respond, “Well, my ring says that my sleep patterns have been disturbed for the past few nights due to elevated heart rate, and then today my temperature has gone up. Here, look at the data for yourself.” Wearable technologies — from smart watches and wristbands to patches, rings, and even headsets — help collect valuable health data. These devices are already shaping the future of telehealth by making remote patient monitoring faster, easier, and more accurate than ever before. There are currently thousands of wearable devices on the market, tracking a variety of conditions. But as sensor technology improves, the accuracy of these devices improves as well. In fact, Gartner predicts that “by 2024, miniaturizing capabilities will advance to the point that 10% of all wearable technologies will become unobtrusive to the user,” leading to rapid market growth over the next three to five years. Virtual reality environments to set remote patients at ease The immersive nature of VR makes it a great way to distract patients from the stress they’re feeling. In fact, virtual reality has already proven effective in helping anxious in-office patients relax in stressful situations — like a child receiving a vaccine. This soothing, calming effect can be replicated in telehealth as well. Virtual environments can help alleviate some of the awkwardness of remote telehealth sessions, and help the patient feel closer — both physically and mentally — to the caregiver, which can improve patient care. According to a recent paper on the use of extended reality in telehealth: “Some patients report reluctance to self-advocate during typical telehealth sessions because of poor eye contact and audio interference if more than one person speaks at a time (….) Technologies that evoke presence—the perception, feeling, and interaction with simulations as if they were real — can meaningfully impact the practice and outcomes of telehealth.” While VR technology might not yet be advanced enough to create a fully immersive telehealth experience, it could be very soon. Imagine the possibilities. Augmented reality to improve patient care and diagnosis Wearables aren’t just for patients. There are many devices on the market that can augment and enhance the skills of medical caregivers as well. Visual overlays can help practitioners improve the accuracy of incisions, find difficult veins, take patient temperatures remotely, and much more. Many of these AR headsets, like those designed by RealWear, are also voice-controlled, leaving the practitioner’s hands free to do the work that needs to be done. They can also use the headsets to contact, and even video chat with, clinical specialists to get advice and guidance — making it easier for first responders in the field to accurately diagnose and treat illnesses and injuries before the patient even arrives at the hospital. Getting started with extended reality in telehealth As with any new technology, it’s important to work with partners who provide not only general support, but also vertical-centric support. Pexip is achieving this through partnering and working closely with headset manufacturers like RealWear and Hippo. We are also working with vertical-centric partners like SimplyVideo, allowing Pexip customers to add a variety of XR functionalities to their existing video telehealth platform. Pexip’s vision for the future is centered around leveraging technology to enhance and improve what people can achieve. We’re excited for the journey ahead and hope you will join us. About the Author Jordan Owens is the VP of Architecture for Pexip. He joined Pexip in 2012 from TANDBERG and Cisco where he led the Americas Technical Support organization, the Americas Product Engineering team, and a Pre-Sales Engineering organization for the previous 10+ years of his career. At Pexip, Jordan is responsible for leading the Americas engineering organization and serving as an extension of the global R&D organization. He can be reached at jordan@pexip.com See original article: https://www.americantelemed.org/blog/extended-reality-for-telehealth/ < Previous News Next News >

Over-the-Phone-Therapy: Rand Report Findings Dr. Maheu May 8, 2022 Preference for Over-the-Phone Therapy Visits A recently published RAND Corporation report confirms telehealth can improve healthcare access and high utilization of over-the-phone-therapy visits, also known as audio-only telehealth visits. Suggestions regarding reimbursement are included. However, the report cautions that more research is needed to ensure the equitable delivery of quality healthcare when using audio-only telehealth. In a bid to assist healthcare centers, the California Healthcare Foundation established a quality assurance program, the Connected Care Accelerator program (CCA), in July 2020. RAND researchers worked with 45 CCA health centers in compiling the report, “Experiences of Health Centers in Implementing Telehealth Visits for Underserved Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” RAND Report Findings The RAND report found that the number of clinical visits remained the same during the study period compared to before COVID-19. However, over-the-phone therapy for behavioral health issues was a standout in terms of services received by patients. Audio-only visits were favored for both primary health and behavioral health practitioners when the study started. Many primary health visits had reverted to in-person consultations, but over-the-phone therapy for behavioral health care remained high by the end of the study. There were significant differences in video consultations across health centers, particularly behavioral healthcare. Health centers transitioning from audio-only telehealth visits to video visits had varying degrees of success. Of those that transitioned to video visits, the most successful shared these characteristics: Telehealth video platforms were easy to use. Clinicians obtained leadership support and staff training. Everyone involved experienced a sense of urgency. Patients were willing to try the technology. Health center staff who took part in the study noted that it was challenging to set up video calls, which led to the preference for over-the-phone therapy. Also significant were the changes in the telehealth reimbursement policy. Audio Telehealth Can Bridge the Digital Gap According to the RAND report, healthcare centers had varying degrees of success in implementing telehealth. The availability of digital assets is one of the barriers to entry regarding telehealth access. The report suggested that telehealth phone calls offer the next best option where other telehealth resources are lacking. The American Medical Association (AMA) issued a brief, Equity in Telehealth: Taking Key Steps Forward, which recently provided more data about audio-only telehealth. The report points out that one in five adults in the US does not have broadband, which means that these people cannot avail themselves of the benefits of video-based telehealth. The study also reported that 15% of patients don’t have a smartphone to facilitate a video connection with a provider. AMA suggests that hospitals and healthcare providers should invest in initiatives to broaden the reach of telehealth for the inclusion of marginalized communities. According to the brief, some health centers have increased their support staff to help bridge the digital gap. They have also made available wi-fi and telehealth booths. The AMA report also states: The AMA urges health plans to be required to cover telemedicine-provided services on the same basis as in-person services and not limit coverage only to services provided by select corporate telemedicine providers. Telehealth Reimbursement for Over-the-Phone-Therapy In recent years, telehealth reimbursements and healthcare coverage changes are another reason why over-the-phone therapy and audio-only telehealth visits have gained popularity. Before the pandemic, telehealth reimbursement for over-the-phone therapy was rare. Medicare and many states did not classify audio-only calls as part of telehealth services. Many have now increased telehealth reimbursement to include audio-only telehealth visits. See TBHI’s previous articles related to telehealth reimbursement for more information: 7 States Change Telehealth Coverage for Telehealth Reimbursement Telehealth Expansion: 6 Additional States Announce Telehealth Coverage Audio-Only & Other Telehealth Services Approved for Reimbursement Moving Forward with Over-the-Phone-Therapy and Audio-Only Telehealth Reimbursement It is difficult to monitor how audio-only telehealth visits are now being used because historically there were no codes and modifiers on the claims applications. Medicare and Medicaid providers have recently added audio-only modifiers and coding to their listings. See Telehealth Reimbursement Alert: 2022 Telehealth CPT Codes Released. Data collection regarding telehealth phone calls will be forthcoming as a result. There is a general belief that over-the-phone therapy is open to improper use and can lead to increased costs and inequitable use. Data transparency may help mitigate this belief as clinicians’ preference for other modalities is revealed. See Audio-Only Telehealth: A Classic Solution to a Modern Crisis. RAND Report Recommendations The RAND report concluded that audio-only telehealth policies should be limited until evidence is better gathered and understood since audio-only telehealth data is lacking. Implementing policies with in-person and video requirements and different telehealth reimbursement rates is recommended. It pointed out that healthcare centers and professionals need support and resources for effective telehealth implementation. Professional training is also available. A complementary and recently published report described telehealth systems’ use, access, and quality. It showed how telehealth reimbursement and services have spread into all primary forms of healthcare to the satisfaction of providers and their clients. Over-the-phone therapy will remain an essential part of ensuring that clients receive the care they need until we bridge the digital divide. Policymakers need to balance their concerns with interpretations that support audio-only telehealth policies to reduce digital inequities while efforts are made to reduce the digital divide. < Previous News Next News >

Controversy about Eliminating Telephone Telehealth Coverage By Dr. Maheu April 7, 2021 Clinicians do not typically know how much they don’t know about using the technology until they start a serious course of telehealth training. Only then do they realize how many basic assumptions are incorrect and many of the strategies that they learned in school now need to be re-considered to meet legal and ethical standards. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association focused on telehealth use among the low-income population in California. The study included data from outpatient primary care and behavioral health visits from February 2019 to August 2020 at forty-one federally qualified health centers representing 534 locations in California. The study showed that, with regards to primary care visits, 48.5% of visits occurred via telephone, 48.3% occurred in person, and 3.4% occurred via video. For behavioral health visits, 63.3% via telephone, 22.8% in person, and 13.9% via video. The study’s key finding was that most telehealth appointments during the pandemic period were conducted over the phone. “Eliminating telehealth coverage for audio-only telemedicine visits would disproportionately impact underserved communities,” according to Lori Uscher-Pines, the study’s lead author. “Lower-income patients may face unique barriers to accessing video visits, while federally qualified health centers may lack resources to develop the necessary infrastructure to conduct video telehealth,” she said. “These are important considerations for policymakers if telehealth continues to be widely embraced in the future.” Since the use of telehealth expanded due to COVID, few studies have examined differences in the use of telehealth modalities. However, one federal agency estimated that 30% of telehealth visits had involved phone therapy sessions alone during the pandemic. According to the study, telehealth visits delivered via over-the-phone therapy peaked in April 2020, comprising 65.4% of primary care visits and 71.6% of behavioral health visits. Before the pandemic, many definitions of telehealth excluded phone therapy visits, and private insurers or the government rarely reimbursed them, the study authors noted. Some payers, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, have indicated they may stop telehealth coverage reimbursement for phone therapy sessions when the pandemic ends. Read more about previous rulings for COVID-19 Telephone Telehealth Reimbursement. “There are some concerns that telephone visits could result in fraud, abuse, and unnecessary and lower-quality care. Although these concerns are important to assess, eliminating telehealth coverage for telephone visits could disproportionately affect underserved populations and threaten the ability of the clinics to meet patient needs” stated Dr. Uscher-Pines. The Reality of Professionalism and Telephone Therapy It seems a bit dramatic to point out that telephone therapy can be more subject to fraud and abuse when it actually is often the only lifeline for many people in distress during the pandemic, and beyond. Fraud and abuse can potentially exist everywhere. The real question is whether the professional has bothered to learn how to properly use the telephone for clinical interventions – or if they are making it up on the fly. Unfortunately, although a clear evidence base exists for telephone-based interventions, very few professionals have received adequate training, and more likely, no professional training to use only the telephone to deliver services to a patient or client. They may not have yet realized that a good in-person clinician is not the same as a good telephone therapist, regardless of intention or need. This point can be clarified quite readily by looking at the case of the alcoholic therapist-in-recovery who now decides to offer therapy for alcohol use. Assuming of course that the therapist has excellent therapy skills to start, the therapist’s history with alcohol can actually interfere with their functioning as an addictions therapist, narrowing perspective with unchallenged assumptions related to etiology, treatment options, and/or prognosis. This is why the professional standard for qualifying alcohol therapists is not one’s prior experience with alcohol, but rather, a course completion certificate or certification in alcohol interventions. Even a good (or great) in-person therapist approaching telephone telehealth without training is likely to overestimate the quality and/or effectiveness of their communications. If one does read the literature about telehealth in general and telephone therapy in particular, it is very clear that professional training in order. In fact, most published studies directly call for clinicians to get such training for telehealth and telephone therapy as well. The Telephone Telehealth Evidence-Base The research in telehealth, in general, has also been quite clear that therapists who have received training are more likely to use the medium correctly to deliver outcomes that are not only comparable to in-person care but also to minimize frustration in both themselves and their clients/patients and feel more confident about how to protect the privacy of the exchange. In 2018, after conducting a systematic search for articles published over a 25-year period (January 1991–May 2016), Coughtrey & Pistrang published a study of 14 studies that concluded that “telephone-delivered interventions show promise in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety.” This conclusion is warranted, given that much of the Similarly, in 2020, Castro and colleagues published a meta-analysis looking at 10 studies looking at treatment adherence to telephone therapy for depression. In general, they showed beneficial effects on depression severity when compared to control conditions. However, in these and other published reports showing the effectiveness or adherence rates related to telephone telehealth, treatment models are typically highly manualized. That is, they do not consist of free-form, open discussion common to many psychotherapeutic approaches. Therapists in such studies tend to follow very strict procedural dictates, and often, the recipient of care is given written materials and assignments that coincide with specified topics for each meeting. Conducting a mid-pandemic online qualitative survey of mental health care professionals in Netherlands, Feijt and colleagues (2020) reported, “Regarding the mediated nature of communication, the most frequently reported challenge concerns the lack of nonverbal signals that practitioners normally use in face-to-face communication, such as posture and hand movements, but also general demeanor, including smell. Practitioners find it more difficult to connect with their client or clearly communicate their intended message. This is even stronger when sessions are conducted by telephone when there is only audio to rely on.” Such a conclusion seems warranted, given that in-person training often teaches practitioners to rely on visual stimuli to render a diagnosis, develop and deliver a treatment plan. In evidence-based telehealth professional training, and especially in competency-based certificate programs of professional training, many of these issues can be addressed using protocols that are tailored to the clinician’s specific client for one’s patient population, setting, state, and professional requirements. On the other hand, clinicians who use communication technology without professional training are likely to be as confused by the online delivery of healthcare as someone accustomed to using a handset telephone who now is handed a smartphone to make a simple call. Therapist Vulnerability in Telephone Telehealth? Assessing a client or patient’s emotional state from voice alone can be problematic, particularly if the professional’s prior telephone habits involve multitasking. As discuss by Hilty, Randhawa, Maheu, McKean, Pantera & Mishkin (2020), distractions are the #1 problem with digital interventions. Don’t we all multitask when on the phone? Where then does distractibility leave the busy professional who typically multi-tasks during telephone therapy? Professionals who allow their workspace to be impinged by devices that regularly emit incoming messages, beeps, flashing lights, and other forms of alerts will likely find it difficult to stay focused on the voice input they now are attempting to use to deliver the same standard of care as in-person. Some therapists even so boldly encourage their clients and patients to “take a walk” while they themselves stroll about their neighborhoods or other local public areas while offering telephone therapy. All the while, these professionals profess to be delivering the same standard of care as when the client is seated in front of them, in a closed room. Could these realities be used to discredit an earnest professional who is attempting to deliver quality care via telephone therapy to people in need? Telehealth Service Delivery is Not Intuitive Telehealth service delivery is not intuitive, regardless of one’s experience in person or the need of the client. Faulty assumptions, lack of knowledge, undeveloped skillsets, and naive attitudes can lead to preventable error and potential harm. Pierce, Perrin, & McDonald (2020) stated, “Organizations interested in encouraging telepsychology use should adopt policies supporting the use of telepsychology and provide adequate training to do so.” Such calls for training are common to published reports and mimic those of telehealth in general for more than two decades. In 2000, Maheu and Gordon reported the results of an extensive survey assessing psychologist’s assumptions regarding the legal and ethical requirements for telehealth. Fourteen years later, a similar article was published by Maheu and a larger team of researchers who assessed roughly the same variables. In the 2020 study, two-thirds of clinicians endorsed items suggesting that standard legal and ethical mandates don’t apply to telehealth delivery of psychotherapy (Maheu & Gordon, 2000). In a more extensive survey, Glueckauf, Maheu, Drude, Wells, Wang, Gustafson & Nelson (2018) showed that the number had decreased to one-third. The disturbing fact is, however, that while two-thirds of clinicians endorsed items suggesting an awareness of legal and ethical mandates, it cannot be assumed that those clinicians understood how those mandates apply to their everyday telehealth practices. Where does this leave the average clinician who has no or minimal telehealth training, yet is confident that they are delivering quality care because they “feel good about it” and because it is “needed?” Therapists too are vulnerable to emotional reasoning… Courtroom Realities of Telephone Therapy Knowing how litigating attorneys work, it is quite conceivable that opposing counsel in a lawsuit against a therapist would wield several such recently published telehealth articles in the direction of an unwitting therapist who blithely offers telephone therapy without the proper documentation to prove that they indeed were actually trained in evidence-based telephone telehealth. Perhaps the CIVID emergency would tempter such accusations, depending on the circumstance. Hopefully so. However, the worrisome issue at hand is that most clinicians have never been taught the reality of what actually happens in courtrooms. Such training can be a difficult awakening. To help our readers better understand the issues involved with delivering clinical care in an area where there is a lack of professional training, we will make you privy to a training video that we regularly show in our 2-day certificate training programs. It features Attorney Joe McMenamin demonstrating his litigation skills as a prosecuting attorney for the defense in a “mock deposition.” In this video, he demonstrates exactly how a prosecuting attorney would “prepare” their case against a witness’s testimony for a trial wherein the therapist is being sued by an angry client. The video is painful to watch. Our only solace at TBHI is that Mr. McMenamin has not only worked for decades as a prosecuting attorney for the defense, but he is also a physician. he understands and shares the ethos of many healthcare professionals, and has worked these many years to defend us in court. That’s his motivation for working with TBHI for decades to develop training materials and peer-reviewed books and articles – to help professionals who are poorly informed of what can happen when one is led by the unbridled desire to help rather than a firm grounding in telehealth theory and practice. Caveat While this type of cross-examination wouldn’t happen to professionals who deliver telephone therapy during the pandemic because we are currently in a state of national emergency, but if telephone therapy were to be approved long-term, this is precisely the type of rigor that would be expected of professionals delivering professional services to people in need. As all licensed professionals know, there is a high bar for the delivery of professional services. Practicing licensed healthcare professional in the United States or Canada as well as in many other countries isn’t something one does in the same manner as they would if they were talking to a family member on the phone, multitasking, opening email, glancing at texts, perhaps outside strolling about the park — while the other party probably is also multi-tasking and/or strolling about as well. When we share the video below, please use this information to extrapolate how a skilled professional needs to be able to defend the amount of training they have obtained in any new area of practice including phone therapy sessions alone when a litigating attorney has them on the witness stand. Please note, we at TBHI are not saying this process is fair or right. It simply is reality. Courtroom Realities of Telehealth Malpractice Before watching, please let us explain what is happening in the video. First, this is one of the many training videos that we typically share with our training audiences. You will see how the attorney discredits the psychologist who is named “Dr. Joanne Johnson,” acted by Dr. Marlene Maheu for purposes of this role-play. The cross-examining attorney is Mr. Joe McMenamin, who is indeed a litigating attorney and physician in real life. He, however, defends practitioners in court rather than a prosecuting attorney, which he depicts in this audio lesson. However, having litigated against attorneys who prosecute, he is in a unique position to show you exactly what happens in court, should you ever have the misfortune of experiencing it firsthand. The interactions portrayed in the audio recording are abbreviated because Dr. Johnson provided additional information rather than doing as witnesses are instructed, and that is to give yes/no answers when possible, and offer as little as possible unless directly asked. You will see that Dr. Johnson actually offers a fair amount of information to get to the point of the demonstration. Upon experiencing the agony of witnessing such an exhaustive exchange, but in real life, it would behoove you to obtain the advice of a defense attorney about offering as much information as is depicted. The purpose of the demonstration, in this case, was to show you what a skilled litigator can do to disarm a well-intentioned professional during a deposition. The attorney goes on to explain his rationales, strategies, and how opposing counsel (which he is role-playing) would generally use the information gathered to discredit the plaintiff in court. This first training video is 37 minutes in length. TBHI Position on Telephone Therapy Just to be clear, TBHI is in complete support of phone therapy sessions alone for all clients and patients who need or are interested in such healthcare. However, having been the Chair of the CTiBS Committee on Telebehavioral Health Competencies, the Founder of TBHI is acutely aware of the lack of competence in psychotherapists who deliver such care. Clinicians do not typically know how much they don’t know about using the technology until they start a serious course of telehealth training. Only then do they realize how many basic assumptions are incorrect and many of the strategies that they learned in school now need to be re-considered to meet legal and ethical standards. All untrained professionals then are encouraged to consider serious telehealth training if they wish to be competence and legally and ethically compliant with the evidence base. References Castro, A., Gili, M., Ricci-Cabello, I., Roca, M., Gilbody, S., Perez-Ara, M.A., Seguí, A. & McMillan, D. (2020) Effectiveness and adherence of telephone-administered psychotherapy for depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 260, 514-526, ISSN 0165-0327,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.09.023. Coughtrey, A. E., & Pistrang, N. (2018). The effectiveness of telephone-delivered psychological therapies for depression and anxiety: a systematic review. Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 24(2), 65-74. Feijt, M., de Kort, Y., Bongers, I., Bierbooms, J., Westerink, J., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2020). Mental health care goes online: Practitioners’ experiences of providing mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(12), 860-864. Glueckauf, R. L., Maheu, M. M., Drude, K. P., Wells, B. A., Wang, Y., Gustafson, D. J., & Nelson, E. L. (2018). Survey of psychologists’ telebehavioral health practices: Technology use, ethical issues, and training needs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49(3), 205. Hilty, D. M., Randhawa, K., Maheu, M. M., McKean, A. J., Pantera, R., & Mishkind, M. C. (2020). A Review of Telepresence, Virtual Reality, and Augmented Reality Applied to Clinical Care. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-020-00126-x Maheu, M. M., & Gordon, B. L. (2000). Counseling and therapy on the Internet. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31(5), 484. Pierce, B. S., Perrin, P. B., & McDonald, S. D. (2020). Demographic, organizational, and clinical practice predictors of US psychologists’ use of telepsychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 51(2), 184. Link: https://telehealth.org/telephone-telehealth/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=New+COVID-19+FCC+Telehealth+Grant+%7C+TBHI+Telehealth+News+4%2F14%2F21&utm_campaign=April+13th+Newsletter&vgo_ee=L60XUD6gIFzXzaAzbkkf6r35hO7C%2FF3J%2FgQB9Uu3XAY%3D Previous rulings for COVID-19 Telephone Telehealth Reimbursement: https://telehealth.org/reimbursement-covid-19-telephone/ < Previous News Next News >

CCHP Releases Factsheet Based on Policies in New FQHC Category of Policy Finder CCHP October 25, 2022 Last week’s latest update to CCHP’s Telehealth Policy Finder included a brand-new feature: a category specifically for federally qualified health centers' (FQHC) Medicaid fee-for-service policies. Funded by the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) through funding from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the new section includes the many unique rules that apply to FQHCs that sometimes effect their ability to utilize telehealth. CCHP is now making a factsheet available summarizing the findings from our new FQHC section. CCHP searched statute, state Medicaid manuals, administrative code and fee for service polices between July and early September 2022, for relevant policies. In some categories, the factsheet reports a certain number of states that are reimbursing for a specific modality or the prospective payment system (PPS) rate. Note that CCHP only counts states as providing reimbursement if official and explicit Medicaid documentation was found confirming they are reimbursing FQHCs specifically for a certain modality. A broad statement that all providers are reimbursed or any originating site is eligible without an explicit reference to FQHCs was insufficient. Additionally, a state Medicaid program was counted as reimbursing FQHCs even if they do so in a very limited way, such as only for mental health. KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE: Definition of Encounter/Visit: The majority of Medicaid programs do provide a definition for a FQHC ‘encounter’ or ‘visit’ that stipulates that it is a face-to-face interaction. This does not necessarily preclude use of telehealth as live video can also be considered ‘face-to-face’. Same-Day Visits: CCHP examined each state Medicaid program’s policy on ‘same day encounters/visits’. Many states have limitations around FQHCs claiming more than one encounter in a single day for a single patient. This is thought to be a limitation applicable to telehealth because it is common for a patient to visit a FQHC for a primary care visit, and upon examination require a specialty service (such as mental health). CCHP observed that most state Medicaid programs do indeed have limitations around same day encounters, particularly if the services occur at the same location and are both considered the same type of encounter (for example, a medical encounter). However, there are often allowances for multiple encounters if the service is considered a different type of encounter, for example a mental health encounter. FQHCs as Originating Sites: 36 states and DC explicitly allow FQHCs to serve as originating sites for telehealth-delivered services. If a state does reimburse a facility fee, it is common for FQHCs to be eligible to collect the fee, however not every state Medicaid program reimburses the facility fee. FQHCs as Distant Site: 34 states and DC explicitly allow FQHCs to be distant site providers. This was often stated in Medicaid manuals or regulations as a clarification so that there could be no confusion about their eligibility for reimbursement. FQHCs Collecting the Prospective Payment System (PPS) Rate: In some cases, policy addressed whether or not FQHCs would be eligible for the prospective payment system (PPS) rate. Twenty state Medicaid programs and DC explicitly clarify that FQHCs are eligible for the PPS rate when serving as distant site providers. Store and Forward Reimbursement: The vast majority of states did not specify or excluded store-and-forward from an eligible service FQHCs could be reimbursed for. Only 4 state Medicaid programs explicitly reimburse FQHCs for store-and-forward. Audio-Only Reimbursement: 9 state Medicaid programs explicitly allow reimbursement for audio-only services to FQHCs. In some cases, services are only reimbursed through communication technology-based services (CTBS) codes, or have other restrictions (such as limitations around the service type) limiting its use. Remote Patient Monitoring Reimbursement: While most states did not address whether or not FQHCs would be eligible for remote patient monitoring, in a few instances CCHP noted states that allowed them to be reimbursed through CTBS codes, although separate from their ‘core services’ or encounter rate. Services Outside the Four Walls: FQHCs have sometimes had to adhere to rules restricting services from being rendered outside of the four walls of their facility. This can pose a problem for telehealth encounters when the patient may be at home and connecting to a FQHC provider. CCHP found that Medicaid policies did not always address this situation explicitly, and the policies that were found often did not address a telehealth situation explicitly leaving it ambiguous whether this model of care is allowed. FQHC Limitations on Establishing a Patient Provider Relationship: This was examined as a topic area for each state, but only California was found to have such requirements. For more detailed explanations, examples of each topic area above, and a chart reporting whether each state reimburses FQHCs for the specific modalities or PPS rate, see the Telehealth Policies and FQHCs Factsheet. For each state’s specific FQHC policies, along with links to source materials, see the new FQHC section of CCHP’s Policy Finder. See original article: https://mailchi.mp/cchpca/cchp-releases-factsheet-based-on-policies-in-new-fqhc-category-of-policy-finder < Previous News Next News >

KFF Report on Telehealth - Medicare Use Offers Future Policy Implications Center for Connected Health Policy June 2021 Given the limitations around Medicare telehealth coverage pre-pandemic, many of these individuals had little experience with telehealth previously, offering an important perspective to inform ongoing telehealth policy considerations. More work will need to be done to further education around telehealth and ensure its availability to all communities. A Kaiser Family Foundation brief presents new information and analysis of Medicare beneficiaries’ utilization of telehealth using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) survey data from between summer and fall of 2020 while CMS emergency telehealth expansions were in effect. Given the limitations around Medicare telehealth coverage pre-pandemic, many of these individuals had little experience with telehealth previously, offering an important perspective to inform ongoing telehealth policy considerations. For instance, while 64% of beneficiaries said their provider currently offers telehealth appointments, only 18% said their provider offered telehealth prior to the pandemic. However, nearly a quarter of beneficiaries said they don’t know if their provider offers telehealth appointments, with the percentage even larger among rural beneficiaries. Therefore, while expanded policies appear to have increased access to services via telehealth, more work will need to be done to further education around telehealth and ensure its availability to all communities. Additional findings from the study include: -Over 1 in 4 (27% or 15 million) of Medicare beneficiaries had a telehealth visit between the summer and fall of 2020 -The majority of Medicare beneficiaries (56%) used telephone only *Video was 28% *Both video and telephone was 16% -The share of Medicare beneficiaries who had a telehealth visit using telephone only was higher among: *Those age 75 and older (65%) *Hispanic beneficiaries (61%) *Those living in rural areas (65%) *Those enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid (67%) The report also found that rural Medicare beneficiaries were less likely than urban beneficiaries to have a telehealth visit with a doctor or other health professional (21% vs. 28%, respectively). However, among Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of care and whose usual provider offers telehealth, they found no significant difference between the share of rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries who had a telehealth visit (43% and 45%, respectively). They note this difference is likely driven by the fact that rural Medicare beneficiaries were more likely than urban Medicare beneficiaries to say they do not know if their usual provider offers telehealth (30% vs. 21%, respectively). Similarly, among Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of care whose usual provider offers telehealth, they found that a larger share of Black and Hispanic beneficiaries had a telehealth visit compared to White beneficiaries (52%, 52%, and 43%). However, among the total Medicare population, the difference in the share of Black and White beneficiaries who reported having a telehealth visit was not statistically significant (30% vs. 26%), while a larger share of Hispanic beneficiaries than White beneficiaries had a telehealth visit (33% vs. 26%). They note that for Black Medicare beneficiaries, this result is likely related to the fact that nearly a quarter of Black beneficiaries overall (23%) say their usual provider does not offer telehealth appointments, compared to 12% of White beneficiaries and 15% of Hispanic beneficiaries. Looking forward, the authors suggest that since they found greater usage of telehealth amongst those with disabilities, low incomes, and in communities of color, the temporary expansions of coverage may be helping more disadvantaged populations access care. In addition, since most services are being provided via audio-only, they state going back to requiring two-way video could be a barrier for many subgroups of the Medicare population. As policymakers continue to request data on telehealth and consider making certain emergency policies permanent, many are looking to Medicare to lead the way, and this information further confirms the importance of maintaining access to all telehealth modalities in all communities, or risk potentially exacerbating existing disparities even further post-pandemic. Additional expansion and education of telehealth availability will continue to remain necessary as well. More information on the survey and analysis can be found in the full issue brief - https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-and-telehealth-coverage-and-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-options-for-the-future/. < Previous News Next News >

UCHealth slashes code blues up to 70% with telehealth technologies Bill Siwicki December 20, 2022 The academic medical center uses tele-sitter and virtual ICU platforms for a program it calls Virtual Deterioration. UCHealth is a non-profit healthcare organization based in Colorado made up of 12 hospitals across the state. THE PROBLEM The organization had a new use case for virtual care, a program called Virtual Deterioration. Essentially, it was trying to find patients who were deteriorating in the hospital sooner in order to provide rescue and treatment faster to give them the best outcome. "What we were seeing prior to this program was a lot of variability as we tried to detect deterioration, and then once we were detecting it, reaching out to the bedside caregivers as to what happened next," said Dr. Diana Breyer, chief medical officer of the Northern Region at UCHealth. "And so, this was very much a part of our plan to decrease that variability for patients that were staying in place for us to be able to monitor them consistently with more frequent vital signs to make sure we really had rescued them and utilized technology to keep an extra set of eyes on them," she added. PROPOSAL UCHealth already had implemented vendor AvaSure's TeleSitter platform for patient safety and the vendor's Verify for virtual ICU. It expanded use of these technologies to Virtual Deterioration. Prior to implementing the technology, the process for virtual deterioration involved staff in a remote clinical command center working in tandem with frontline staff. "And we did try a process before we employed the technology, where it was a lot of secure chat through our EHR, similar to texting, in addition to a lot of phone calls and not really being able to visualize our patients," said Amy Hassell, RN, senior director for the Virtual Health Center at UCHealth. "This approach created a lot of friction and interruption to the bedside staff who were trying to do hands-on tasks with the patient," she continued. "So we decided to bring in an audio-visual connection. We have mobile carts, and some of our hospitals have cameras in the ceiling so we can just turn on that camera when a deterioration event is occurring." With the camera in the room, physicians and nurses in the command center now can see and interact with the patient as well as the care team. "They're able to see what's occurring so that it's just like we're in the room with that care team member," Hassell explained. "When we do this, it helps us cut down on phone calls and interruptions at the bedside, allowing us to still participate and do our part of the program. "The program provides support and makes sure milestones of care are being met throughout that deterioration event, and help triage if needed," she continued. Because it's a clinical command center that operates a lot of equipment and different platforms, staff have a weekly operational meeting with the IT team that supports the area. "They were part of our planning phases; further, we did our own IT technical dress rehearsals ahead of implementation with the clinical folks each time we went live," Hassell explained. "IT is in lockstep with us and have been very helpful to getting this deployed by helping support us, navigate us through the bumps, as we push the envelope. They're great partners to us and have been since the very beginning." MARKETPLACE There are many vendors of telemedicine technology and services on the health IT market today. Healthcare IT News published a special report highlighting many of these vendors with detailed descriptions of their products. Click here to read the special report. MEETING THE CHALLENGE Today, the Virtual Deterioration technology is a separate platform. There's going to be context-aware linking soon, and that will help because then staff can go right in from the patient's chart through that portal. Clinicians at the bedside use this technology. Nursing staff and physician staff are the ones pulling the monitoring equipment into the room and using it at the bedside. On the reciprocal end, it's the remote clinical command staff who are accessing that camera to participate with the team and interact with them. UCHealth is in the midst of developing a new role called the "patient technology technician." "The patient technology technician is a staff member who brings the mobile device into the room so that nurses and physicians don't have to be responsible for setting it up, and they can remain focused on the patient," Hassell said. "That's been successful. We're really trying to get all of our folks operating at the top of their license. "This role will be very helpful as we continue to scale it, so the nursing staff aren't the ones having to bring monitoring equipment to that rapid response," she added. RESULTS When UCHealth started looking at this project, it looked for deterioration in particular, such as what are the metrics being sought. One of them that is well-established in the literature is around decreasing code events in the acute care setting, Breyer noted. "Those patients ideally are brought to the ICU and if they're going to code, code there, or if they're rescued," she said. "So we have seen improvement throughout the work that we've been doing around deterioration in this space both in the northern and southern region of UCHealth where we've implemented the solution. "And that's probably our biggest metric that we're able to measure," she continued. "I'll add that in the space of deterioration, it is sometimes difficult to measure what you're doing because you're trying to show that you're now doing something that you were previously not doing. And measuring that omission can be a challenge." The other thing staff are measuring as a process metric is for those patients who stay in place and are not being moved to a higher level of care at the time of their rapid response event. "We are measuring a consistent post-RRT intervention that we previously did not have," Breyer said. "That's another area that we're monitoring. Ultimately, we would like to see this improve mortality, but that's more of a lagging indicator, and that one is a little more variable in the literature as to how much they affect these deterioration events." Hassell stresses the organization is going to have to continue to trend this and the lagging indicator of mortality within the patient population being touched. "But we have early data where we've seen our rapid response rates increase anywhere from 26% up to about an 86% increase, depending on what location you're looking at as we've done this across our system," she reported. "And then, in early data again, we've seen our code blue events in our acute care areas go down by 25% to 70%. "We've seen our code blue events drop, which helps us know we're going in the right direction, we're detecting deterioration earlier, thus reducing a bad outcome from a code blue," she continued. To Breyer's point, UCHealth has seen the post-monitoring period, because it's leaving that camera in place for six hours and virtual staff are helping oversee and watch that patient in conjunction with the frontline staff who are very busy. "And so we've seen an increase in post-rapid response vitals anywhere from a 39% increase up to 152% increase of vitals being ordered, and then working on getting them completed," Hassell explained. "It's been a large range that we've seen, but a lot of intentionality because resources are tied up in that rapid response call. "Once the patient is stabilized, and they're staying on the floor, the nurses then go see other patients that they've not seen for a while," she continued. "And so we've got to make sure that we're taking time to watch over the patient in that kind of fragile window when they still could continue to deteriorate and need a higher level of care. That's where we put a lot of focus and energy, and those are some of our early metrics." ADVICE FOR OTHERS The piece Hassell likes about the technology currently in use is that staff have been able to flex it for a different use case that's been highly valuable. "We're still working on making it an improved platform with the company, but I also think that it's been instrumental and opened up pathways for us that we wouldn't have previously had," she noted. "We weren't seeing the success that we're seeing now until we introduced the camera piece because it solved those issues we mentioned. "And so if you are considering any sort of hybrid approach from, for example, a clinical command center or nursing workflows, you want to have a great platform that you feel your staff can use and interact with seamlessly and with ease," she advised. From a technology standpoint, having it be easy and seamless for the bedside team is key, Breyer said. "While there are now great technology solutions to some of these problems, the heavy lift is the change management with your bedside team, the non-technology piece," she concluded. "And so that's where a lot of the energy for a successful project must be." Follow Bill's HIT coverage on LinkedIn: Bill Siwicki Email the writer: bsiwicki@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/uchealth-slashes-code-blues-70-telehealth-technologies?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=womeninhit < Previous News Next News >

Workers Report Burnout Due to Healthcare Cybersecurity Concerns Jill McKeon Oct. 6, 2021 Three-quarters of industry professionals reported having healthcare cybersecurity concerns about protected health information being communicated via unsecured communication devices. Physician burnout was a growing problem prior to the pandemic, but other healthcare professionals are reporting significant levels of burnout as well, according to a survey conducted by Spok. Over 50 percent of IT staff and contact center staff reported feeling a considerable level of burnout. Meanwhile, over 60 percent of clinical executives reported feeling “a great deal” of burnout since the pandemic. Healthcare professionals overwhelmingly agreed that the risk of clinician burnout is a public health crisis “that demands action by healthcare institutions, governing bodies, and regulatory authorities.” Many credited complicated technologies and poor technological integration as some of the leading factors in clinician burnout. The research suggested that improved communication tools could lessen the risk of clinician burnout. “Survey respondents seem to agree that improving communication technology could help address the risk of burnout through increasing efficiency of workflows, improving exchange of data between care members, and adopting mobile technologies,” the study explained. COVID-19 reshaped many aspects of care delivery, and also highlighted the need for secure communication technologies that can simultaneously comply with HIPAA and seamlessly integrate into an organization’s operations. Just over 80 percent of surveyed healthcare workers reported believing that COVID-19 played a role in protected health information (PHI) being communicated via unsecured or personal communication tools. Researchers surveyed over 200 healthcare executives, physicians, IT personnel, nurses, and contact center representatives about the state of communication in their organizations. Results revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic not only caused significant healthcare worker burnout, but also shifted resources away from valuable cybersecurity initiatives. “With security and privacy issues on the rise in 2021, perhaps it’s not unexpected that survey respondents are concerned,” the survey report stated. “Looking ahead, hospitals and health systems may need to bolster initiatives to meet HIPAA standards for PHI protection and to avoid noncompliance, reputational harm, and serious financial penalties. It could also signify the need for health systems to have in place an advanced, HIPAA-compliant critical communication solution.” All industries have become increasingly reliant on communication technologies, especially during the pandemic when mobile communication devices became the primary method of communication for many workplaces. Smartphones have remained the number one most supported device in healthcare since 2012, as in-house pager use continues to decrease. However, pagers still play a key role in care team communications. Most respondents reported that their organization’s budget constraints continue to prevent them from updating their outdated communication devices. In addition, the complexity of meeting HIPAA requirements and insufficient leadership support are major obstacles in advancing a healthcare organization’s internal communication tactics. Implementing new communication tools also presents new cybersecurity risks and calls for enterprise-wide training programs. Just under half of respondents reported that their teams paused outstanding IT communication projects during the pandemic. While 43 percent of respondents expected to resume these projects within the next six months, the rising prevalence of the Delta variant may alter that timeline. < Previous News Next News >

Closing 2022 with New Telehealth G-Codes for HHAs, Uncertainty for Telehealth Startups, Plus State & Federal Telehealth Developments (and much more!) CCHP December 13, 2022 New G-Code Reporting Requirements for HHAs under CY 2023 CMS PPS Rule The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has finalized new G-codes to report use of telecommunications technology under the home health benefit for Home Health Agencies (HHAs) under their finalized Calendar Year (CY) 2023 Home Health Prospective Payment System (PPS) Rate Update. HHAs are asked to voluntarily start reporting on January 1, 2023, and the requirement to report would kick in July 2023. CMS notes that in 2020 the home health benefit was temporarily altered due to COVID-19 (and made permanent in 2021) requiring any provision of remote patient monitoring or other services furnished via a telecommunications system to be included in the plan of care. The telecommunication service, however is not allowed to substitute for a home visit ordered by the plan of care or for purposes of eligibility or payment. Reporting of the new G-codes will allow CMS to analyze the characteristics of beneficiaries utilizing services remotely and have a broader understanding of the social determinants that affect who benefits most from these services. The codes HHAs will be asked to submit are detailed in a Medicare Learning Network (MLN) document, and include: G0320: Home health services furnished using synchronous telemedicine rendered via a real-time two-way audio and video telecommunications system G0321: Home health services furnished using synchronous telemedicine rendered via telephone or other real-time interactive audio-only telecommunications system G0322: The collection of physiologic data digitally stored and/or transmitted by the patient to the home health agency (for example, remote patient monitoring) For more details on the G-codes and reporting expectations, see the full MLN Guidance and the full text of the finalized CY 2023 Home Health PPS Rate Rule. Falling Investment for Telehealth Startups A recent article in Politico [subscription required] brings to light the stark decrease in investment in telehealth companies in 2022 (compared to 2021), as the pandemic subsides and a recession likely kicks in. In fact, while telehealth funding for digital health in the US peaked in 2021 with $11 billion dollars, that has fallen to only $3 billion by the third quarter of 2022. The effects of this slow down in capital is bound to ripple across the industry. As a result, many startups are laying off workers and focusing on just a few key offerings. Adding to the uncertainty of the future for these companies is how telehealth policies will impact them moving forward as state and federal governments shift from pandemic era temporary policies to often stricter permanent telehealth requirements with greater oversight. Cerebral, a digital mental health company, for example is currently under federal investigation for over-prescribing ADHD medication. This is the type of occurrence other telehealth companies may take note of and may shape the way they think about the future of their products and services in order to avoid such situations. Additionally, consumer demand has shifted post-pandemic. While consumers were enthusiastic about utilizing telehealth for most forms of healthcare in order to avoid crowded doctors’ offices and hospitals at the height of the pandemic, they now prefer to use it for check-ins with their doctors, mental health visits and addiction treatment, according a survey by the American Medical Association. This necessitates a shift for many telehealth start-ups, and according to Megan Zweig, COO of Rock Health, many companies are struggling with this. For more information, read the full Politico article [subscription required]. World Health Organization Telemedicine Implementation Guidance In November the World Health Organization (WHO) released a telemedicine implementation guide based on knowledge and learnings the WHO has gathered since releasing their first report on telemedicine in 2010. The set of recommendations within the new guide is aimed at optimizing the implementation of telemedicine services by providing an overview of key planning, implementation and maintenance processes to inform an investment plan and support countries across different stages in developing telehealth solutions. The guide contains three phases to developing a successful telehealth program, including (1) a situational assessment; (2) planning the implementation; and (3) monitoring and evaluation, and continuous improvement. There are a total of eleven steps within the three phases, including tasks such as performing a landscape analysis, establishing standard operating procedures, developing a budget and determining monitoring and evaluation goals, as well as an adaptive management plan for improvement. Several case studies from different countries, including India, Cabo Verde, Indonesia, Qatar and Mali are also provided in the annex section of the document. Download the full telemedicine implementation document from the WHO’s website for all the detailed steps outlined in their recommended procedures for telemedicine implementation. See full article: https://mailchi.mp/cchpca/closing-2022-with-new-telehealth-g-codes-for-hhas-uncertainty-for-telehealth-startups-plus-state-federal-telehealth-developments-and-much-more < Previous News Next News >

Access to Care, Health Equity Lagging in the US; Is Telehealth Safer Than In-Person Care? Jacqueline LaPointe August 2021 The US ranked last when it came to access to care, health equity, and other measurements of healthcare, while telehealth may prove to be a safer option for patients. Right now, the US may boast the most medals from the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020. However, new research shows that the country is lagging in most healthcare metrics, including access to care and health equity. In other news, data suggests that telehealth could be a safer option for patients and small businesses look to self-funding options. US SPENDS THE MOST, BUT COMES OUT LAST The United States ranked last on measurements of health equity, access to care, administrative efficiency, and healthcare outcomes compared to ten other wealthy nations, the Commonwealth Fund recently reported. Yet, the US still spent the most of its gross domestic products on healthcare. Additionally, the US lagged behind comparable countries in terms of healthcare affordability. “U.S. disparities are especially large when looking at financial barriers to accessing medical and dental care, medical bill burdens, difficulty obtaining after-hours care, and use of web portals to facilitate patient engagement,” the report stated. The only measure the US performed favorably on was in the care process domain, which researchers attributed to the success of preventive care and patient engagement. IS TELEHEALTH SAFER THAN THE DOCTOR’S OFFICE? According to a new study, the answer is yes, at least when it comes to flu season. Researchers from the University of Minnesota, Harvard, and athenahealth found that people who went to the doctor’s office after someone infected with the flu had visited were much more likely to get the virus themselves. However, that increase was not seen in people seeking treatment for medical issues like UTIs. The data indicates that telehealth and other means of virtual care can reduce the chance of infection among patients. “Our findings highlight the importance of infection control practices and continued access to telemedicine services, as health care begins to return to pre-pandemic patterns,” Hannah Neprash, an assistant professor at UM’s School of Public Health and one of the study’s authors, said in a news release issued by the university. "In-person outpatient care for influenza may promote nontrivial transmission of these viruses. This may be true for other endemic respiratory illnesses too, including COVID-19, but more research is needed." SMALL BUSINESSES EYE LEVEL, SELF-FUNDING FOR EMPLOYEE COVERAGE A new trend is emerging among small businesses. A recent study from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation shows that small businesses are shifting toward level- and self-funding for healthcare insurance coverage over the individual health insurance marketplace. This shift occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly because employers were less inclined to deny needed coverage to workers. Additionally, health benefits are one of the few ways small businesses can compete with their larger peers in this worker-driven environment. But the trend could change with implementation of the American Rescue Plan’s new individual health insurance marketplace subsidies. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL USES DATA ANALYTICS TO IDENTIFY CARE GAPS Ann & Robert Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago leveraged data analytics capabilities to flag pediatric care gaps and do something about them during the COVID-19 pandemic. “If you don't have the analytics to show where you're at, you may not understand what's happening out there in the market. We were able to use the analytics to show there's been a big decrease, and then we quickly put together a response plan, including communication, radio ads, other types of communication channels, to respond to that,” Scott Wilkerson, chief integration and business development officer at the children’s hospital, told HealthITAnalytics during an interview. The insights gleaned from the data were key to maintaining appropriate access to care during the pandemic and could be a strategy for balancing in-person and virtual care as communities decide how to stay open and protect residents from rising COVID-19 numbers. FDA EXPANDS EUA FOR INVESTIGATIONAL COVID-19 ANTIBODY COCKTAIL The FDA recently updated the emergency use authorization for Regeneron’s investigational COVID-19 antibody cocktail, REGEN-COV, to include its use in individuals with post-exposure prophylaxis. Providers can now administer the drug monthly to qualifying patients if they are at high risk of severe disease and have not been fully vaccinated or who may not mount an adequate response to vaccination. Now, the drug is the only COVID-19 antibody therapy currently available across the US for both treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis. The expansion of the emergency use authorization was based on results from a Phase 3 clinical trial, which showed that REGEN-COV reduced the risk of symptomatic infection by 81 percent in individuals who were not infected with COVID-19 when they entered the trial. Previous clinical trial data also found that the drug reduced risk of death by 20 percent in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had not mounted their own immune response. ANTITRUST AGENCIES MAY TARGET VERTICAL INTEGRATION DEALS The Biden-Harris administration has made consolidation in healthcare a top priority for antitrust agencies and HHS, per a recent executive order. But this doesn’t just mean the colossal deals making headlines (e.g., the recent Beaumont-Spectrum Health merger). Industry experts believe the executive order could mean greater focus on vertical integration deals, such as those between hospitals and physician practices and those between payers and physician groups. “We’re going to see more scrutiny in these areas, particularly with the new vertical merger guidelines the FTC and DOJ issued in 2020. That is certainly top of mind to the FTC and the FTC has substantial experience with hospital-physician consolidation and continues to actively study its effects on competition and quality,” Ken Vorrasi, antitrust litigation partner at Faegre Drinker, told RevCycleIntelligence. Source: https://healthcareexecintelligence.healthitanalytics.com/news/access-to-care-health-equity-lagging-in-the-us-is-telehealth-safer-than-in-person-care < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth's importance grows amid coronavirus pandemic Rick Ruggles March 12, 2022 The coronavirus compelled doctors to see patients in new ways, and one of those is through a computer monitor, miles away from the patient. The pandemic placed greater emphasis on telehealth, which has been around for years but was put to use urgently when the coronavirus spread in early 2020. Officials with Medicare, the government-sponsored insurance for senior citizens, also increased the number of the occasions in which telehealth could be covered during the pandemic. Whether vast telehealth use and broad insurance coverage for it will continue isn’t certain, those who know the benefits of telehealth say it has proved itself and is here to stay. “It’s become part of life,” said Sharon V. Nir, administrative director of strategic operations with Albuquerque-based Lovelace Medical Group. “I do think it’s the new world.” Lovelace created an extensive program in March 2020, with the arrival of the coronavirus, to make remote visits available to patients and doctors through laptop computers, iPads, cellphones and desktops with cameras and microphones. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, University of New Mexico Health, La Familia Medical Center and most other medical systems also increased their use of telehealth. Santa Fe Preparatory School teacher Brad Fairbanks went head over handlebars on his bicycle last month, breaking a collarbone and three ribs. He spent time in an emergency room, but his follow-up visits with his family physician, Dr. Carl Friedrichs of Presbyterian Medical Group, were done remotely. Fairbanks, 61, said the follow-up appointments and pain medication assessments were as effective by videoconference as they would have been in person. “This was the first time I’d done telehealth,” said Fairbanks, the performing arts chairman at his school. “Yes, it worked great.” He said the accident happened at a bad time, with his students preparing to put on the show 9 to 5 The Musical. He missed four days of work and two rehearsals and had to participate in two other rehearsals by Zoom technology. Friedrichs said there is plenty that can be accomplished in a telehealth appointment. “The patient has the choice,” he said. “It’s an extra tool for patients.” In a big state like New Mexico with vast rural expanses, it makes sense to lean on telehealth, he said. “This is a state that has limited medical resources.” Videoconferencing can’t be used for everything, of course. Annual physicals and diagnoses requiring the doctor to lay hands on the patient must be done in person. Blood draws for lab work require a visit, although the result of that lab work can be covered in a virtual appointment. And some patients aren’t at ease with the technology. But telehealth gives patients in rural areas and those who struggle to find transportation the chance to get some of their services done by videoconference. And when the highly contagious coronavirus roared through the world, patients who were reluctant to visit the doctor’s office had an alternative. Christine and Ed Shestak of Albuquerque have had about four videoconference appointments apiece through Lovelace since the start of the pandemic. “For routine things, it just kind of minimizes the risk of picking up anything anybody else might have” in the doctor’s office, said Christine Shestak, 69. She recalled when she took her children to the pediatrician many years ago, kids would cough, noses would run and children would share toys in the waiting room. Telehealth is a solution, she said, and if she has the flu, she doesn’t have to carry it into the clinic and possibly infect others. Ed Shestak, who will soon be 70, said he has hearing aids and sometimes struggles to absorb everything if there is background noise in the doctor’s office. At home, he puts on headphones for his virtual visits. “I can hear and understand better,” he said. Naturally, insurance coverage of telehealth is complicated. Before the pandemic, Medicare coverage for telehealth generally favored rural patients and also included some specific conditions such as end-stage renal disease and strokes. But when the coronavirus forced patients to work from home and limit travel, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded coverage on an emergency basis to patients in cities, to a wider variety of medical practitioners and for a broader set of reasons. Telehealth used by primary care doctors boomed. Specialists in psychology, the digestive tract, lungs and heart also saw increased use of telehealth. The federal government reported in December that Medicare-covered telehealth visits leaped from 840,000 in 2019 to 52.7 million in 2020. Presbyterian spokeswoman Amanda Schoenberg said scheduled telehealth visits with Presbyterian Medical Group went up by 100 times from 2019 through 2021. Medicare will continue to cover many of those services at least through 2023 while officials evaluate the system. Tennessee-based Baker Donelson law firm says on its website new Medicare provisions also permanently removed geographic restrictions on telehealth for diagnosis, evaluation and treatment of mental health disorders. Stetson Berg, chairman of the New Mexico Telehealth Alliance, said Congress will have to pass laws to cement much of the coverage that was added on an emergency basis during the pandemic. Berg said state law in New Mexico has provided some of the most progressive private insurance coverage of telehealth and has served as a “shining star” in the field for close to 10 years. New Mexico was ahead of the game in part because it is so rural, he said. Other states are catching up. In the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers reported last month that analysis of 38 studies showed videoconferencing “generally results in similar clinical effectiveness, health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life as usual care for areas studied.” Those studies were limited to “patients seeking care for a limited set of purposes,” the report added. Christus spokesman Arturo Delgado wrote in a text message that virtual visits “are appropriate for most evaluations. Conditions that can be evaluated include anything from a cough or a cold to more complicated conditions like diabetes or heart disease.” Jasmin Milz Holmstrup, a spokeswoman for La Familia Medical Center in Santa Fe, said the use of telehealth increased considerably at her institution from 2020 to 2021. “It’s an effective way to see patients who have non-urgent needs,” she said. University of New Mexico Health said the institution “utilized all available options to continue to provide patient care, including telehealth. This was a successful way to ensure patients continued to receive care and access to a provider.” Prep teacher Fairbanks said his students prepared for the play while he was “in my recliner, all banged up.” The shows took place March 3 to March 6 and the medical appointments by telehealth and attendance of rehearsals by Zoom didn’t pose a problem. His students came through. “It worked out,” he said. “And the kids stepped up.” < Previous News Next News >