Rural Providers Weigh Telehealth Investment Against Regulatory Uncertainty Holly Vossel June 8, 2022 Hospices are leveraging expanded telehealth options to maximize access for hard-to-reach rural patients despite lingering regulatory uncertainties. Case in point, the Providence Institute for Human Caring last year launched a tele-palliative care program aimed at addressing rural patients’ unmet needs. Thus far, the initiative has yielded positive results, but the process hasn’t always been easy, according to Dr. Gregg VandeKieft, executive medical director of the institute’s Palliative Practice Group. Snags along the way included dairy cows blocking staff from reaching patients. “For the first time we’re able to offer equitable access to specialty palliative care services for patients who need and want them in this rural setting,” VandeKieft told local news. “But we often have to balance providing health care with the time schedules and welfare of livestock, crops and other realities of rural living.” Washington-based Providence Health System provides a range of facility- and home-based care, including senior services and hospice. The company has more than 119,000 employees serving communities in six states. The TelePC program has increased care collaboration between Providence and the patients’ other providers, including family caregivers. It has also reduced travel time for the palliative care team and curbed unnecessary patient transfers and recurring hospitalizations. Hospice and palliative care providers have wrangled for decades with obstacles that complicate access to rural patients and make their care more expensive. For starters, rural regions are less likely to have a Medicare-certified hospice than urban counties. The service areas of the nearest hospices may not extend far enough to reach some of the people in those zones. When rural patients do have a provider in range, those hospices do their best to deliver care while contending with lower patient volumes, a smaller labor pool, long-travel times between home visits and the resulting travel costs. Some of the challenges are very unique to rural areas, like livestock schedules, lack of nearby caregiver support and limited internet bandwidth capacity. Telehealth has been an important part of improving providers’ ability to reach rural patient populations, according to Dr. Michael Fratkin, chief medical officer for ResolutionCare, a Vynca company. Fratkin founded palliative care provider ResolutionCare in 2015. Advanced care planning technology company Vynca acquired the company last year in its first move into the clinical care space. The pressures on rural providers go beyond the logistical. A successful tele-palliative care program requires not only greater access to high-speed internet in those areas, but also the confidence of the people they serve. Many rural residents place a lower value on telehealth services compared to the in-person care they are used to, said Fratkin. “The advantages of telehealth are the gain of seeing people at home and instantaneously sharing space with them,” Fratkin told Hospice News. “We are not physically entering their private space, not requiring them or staff to drive. What’s most important is creating that safe space to share. There are biases that virtual care is second rate. We have to blast through these biases. They are a bigger barrier to palliative and hospice care than dairy cows.” Then came the pandemic, and with it broad expansion of how providers can use telehealth — at least for the time being. Rapid deployment of telemedicine during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) has created “a new pathway” for bringing palliative and hospice care specialists to rural areas, according to authors of a recent report published in the JAMA Health Forum. Additional studies further support the claim that changes to telehealth policy improved access. But without further regulatory or legislative action, those pathways will close when the federally declared emergency ends. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) most recently extended the PHE period to expire in July. The agency has not indicated whether or not they will renew it. As hospices navigate how they will use telehealth in the long-term, these uncertainties put them in a bind. Many are trying to weigh the benefits of telehealth investments against the possibility that they may soon have to shut down or cut back those programs. One factor policymakers might need to consider is that people may now expect that these services will remain available to them. The events of the past two years have opened the eyes of many patients to telehealth’s potential , according to Fratkin. “The pandemic telehealth experiment is unmeasured, but what we’ve discovered by being thrust into this experiment is that I don’t think patients want to give it up,” Fratkin told Hospice News. “They discovered the value of communications technology allowing them to stay in their lives and not interrupt care. Some of these providers are running back to the status quo as if it was working, but we’re going forward, not backward in this.” < Previous News Next News >

Update on Risks of Payments in Arrangements With Telemedicine Companies: OIG Warns of Prosecution Risks and Identifies Seven Criteria for Caution When Entering Into Telemedicine Payment Arrangements, and the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act Passes Andrea M. Ferrari, Nadia de la Houssaye August 26, 2022 On July 20, 2022, the Office of Inspector General of the US Department of Health & Human Services (OIG) issued a Special Fraud Alert urging healthcare practitioners to exercise caution when entering into arrangements with telemedicine companies. OIG issued this Special Fraud Alert the same day the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced criminal charges against 36 defendants in 13 federal districts as part of the DOJ’s Nationwide Coordinated Law Enforcement Effort to Combat Telemedicine, Clinical Laboratory, and Durable Medical Equipment Fraud.[1] The Special Fraud Alert notes that OIG has recently conducted dozens of investigations of alleged fraud schemes involving companies that provide telehealth, telemedicine, or telemarketing services (collectively, Telemedicine Companies). It also notes that in many of these investigations, OIG found evidence that the Telemedicine Companies intentionally paid physicians and non-physician practitioners (collectively, Practitioners) kickbacks to generate orders or prescriptions for medically unnecessary durable medical equipment, genetic testing, wound care items, or prescription medications. The Special Fraud Alert warns that such kickback schemes implicate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and can lead to Practitioners, Telemedicine Companies, and others that participate in the schemes being held liable criminally, civilly, and administratively. Liability may arise from (1) paying or receiving payment in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; and (2) causing submission of fraudulent claims to federal healthcare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare, which may constitute a violation of the federal False Claims Act and other federal laws. As a cautionary guide, the Special Fraud Alert identifies seven arrangement characteristics that may raise OIG scrutiny: 1. The patients for whom a Practitioner orders or prescribes items or services are identified or recruited by a Telemedicine Company, sales agent, recruiter, call center, or health fair, and/or through internet, television, or social media advertising for free or low-cost out-of-pocket items or services. 2. A Practitioner does not have sufficient contact with or information from the purported patient to meaningfully assess the medical necessity of the items or services ordered or prescribed. 3. A Telemedicine Company compensates a Practitioner based on the volume of items or services ordered or prescribed, which may be characterized to the Practitioner as compensation based on the number of medical records that the Practitioner reviewed. 4. A Telemedicine Company furnishes items and services only to federal healthcare program beneficiaries and does not accept insurance from any other payor. 5. A Telemedicine Company claims to furnish items and services only to individuals who are not federal healthcare program beneficiaries but may, in fact, bill federal healthcare programs. 6. A Telemedicine Company only furnishes one product or a single class of products (e.g., durable medical equipment, genetic testing, diabetic supplies, or various prescription creams), potentially restricting a Practitioner’s treatment options to a predetermined course of treatment. 7. A Telemedicine Company does not expect Practitioners to follow up with patients, nor does it provide Practitioners with the information required to follow up with patients (e.g., the Telemedicine Company does not require Practitioners to discuss genetic testing results with each purported patient). OIG advises in the Special Fraud Alert that this list of suspect criteria is illustrative and not exhaustive. Therefore, even arrangements that do not specifically fit one or more of these suspect criteria may still be suspect. However, OIG also indicates that it recognizes there are many legitimate telemedicine and telehealth arrangements, and explicitly states that the Special Fraud Alert is not intended to discourage those legitimate arrangements. Rather, OIG is using the Special Fraud Alert to encourage Practitioners (and, by extension, their advisors) to use heightened scrutiny, exercise caution, and consider the above list of suspect criteria before entering into arrangements with Telemedicine Companies. Telehealth Expansion Legislation Significantly, a week after OIG issued the Special Fraud Alert, the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly (416-12) passed the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act of 2022 (HR 4040), which encourages broad use of telehealth by expanding and extending for at least an additional two years — through December 2024 — the Medicare telemedicine payment policies that were introduced for the COVID-19 public health emergency. The House bill removes geographic restrictions and expands originating sites for telehealth services, continues expansion of the practitioners eligible to provide telehealth services, allows mental health services to be provided via telehealth and telecommunications, and continues certain COVID-19 allowances for audio-only telehealth services. The bill is now pending in the Senate. [1] Press Release, US Department of Justice, Justice Department Charges Dozens for $1.2 Billion in Health Care Fraud (July 20, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-charges-dozens-12-billion-health-care-fraud. © 2022 Jones Walker LLP National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 238 See Original article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/update-risks-payments-arrangements-telemedicine-companies-oig-warns-prosecution < Previous News Next News >

Bipartisan Policy Center Report Highlights Telehealth Policy Considerations CCHP November 01, 2022 Last month, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) released a comprehensive report on The Future of Telehealth After COVID-19. The report is based upon an analysis of Medicare Telehealth Utilization and Spending Impacts 2019-2021, stakeholder input and interviews, a literature review, and a national consumer survey. The BPC report examines the impact of increased access to telehealth during the pandemic and makes recommendations to policymakers on which COVID-19 policy expansions should be maintained post-public health emergency (PHE). Ultimately, BPC urges the federal government to extend emergency flexibilities for two years to preserve access while further evaluating telehealth effectiveness. In its analysis, BPC made a number of key findings showcasing telehealth’s ability to alleviate access barriers for Medicare beneficiaries, address inequities in access and outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities, low-income earners, and individuals with chronic conditions, as well as improve patient continuity of care. The report also noted that patients and providers generally feel satisfied with telehealth services. Other findings include: A decrease in telehealth utilization since initial pandemic peaks, although 2021 rates remained nearly 40 times higher than pre-pandemic telehealth visits Most telehealth visits were for primary care visits and 44% of all behavioral health visits in 2021 occurred via telehealth About 1 out of 5 telehealth visits were audio-only in 2021 Telehealth utilization was higher in urban areas and for non-white beneficiaries Beneficiaries with disabilities and dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid were more likely to use telehealth in 2021 Medicare spending on telehealth remains a small percent of overall spending – for the outpatient codes BPC examined, telehealth spending was between 1.5% and 3.3% of total spending in 2020 and 2021 In applying its findings to policy recommendations, BPC discusses an attempt to balance competing goals, for instance the need to increase access to care against the need to ensure quality and cost-effectiveness. The report also highlights areas to focus future research and notes the need to examine telehealth outside of PHE conditions to truly generalize findings. In addition, BPC acknowledges limitations in its spending analysis that don’t factor in the potential reduction in long-term costs related to emergency room visits in correlation to increased telehealth visits. In addition to extending Medicare telehealth flexibilities for two years, key BPC recommendations to Congress and the Biden administration include: Maintain access to telehealth for Medicare beneficiaries regardless of location or medical diagnosis – including the home/patient location as an authorized originating site and removing geographic limitations (with protections to require providers to see patients in-person or refer to in-person care when necessary) Authorize FQHCs/RHCs to permanently serve as distant site providers Continue access to primary care and behavioral health services with minor adjustments post-PHE (the recommendation notes that if further research supports it, CMS could consider limiting certain services to existing patient-provider relationships – except in rural areas and for alternative payment methodology (APM) providers) Continue audio-only coverage and incorporate audio-only into telehealth definition (post-PHE audio-only restrictions should limit coverage to established patients and at patient request) Permanently expand asynchronous services beyond virtual check-ins and Alaska and Hawaii demonstration projects for both new and established patients Make Health and Human Services (HHS) 1135 temporary waiver authority permanent for future PHEs Eliminate the requirement for in-person visits for telemental health services (BPC states this is an undue burden on those who cannot access behavioral health providers in-person) Require evaluation of controlled substance prescribing via telehealth and for non-hospice, non-cancer patients, first require an in-person exam prior to prescribing substances prone to abuse (BPC additionally recommends the Department of Justice (DOJ) follow through on its requirement to create a special telemedicine registration process to allow for certain in-person requirement exemptions) Refine reimbursement rates and end broad payment parity between telehealth and in-person care to offset any cost/utilization increases, including implementing different rates for audio-only and video visits In regard to transparency and consumer protections in particular, the report also recommends clear information to beneficiaries be provided regarding benefits appropriately delivered by telehealth and ensuring that beneficiaries consent to the use of telehealth. BPC additionally recommends the ability to distinguish between traditional and fully virtual providers be determined, and that enforcement resume related to HIPAA. In regard to fraud, waste, and abuse protections, the report calls for sufficient funding to the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to modernize and track telehealth use, the requiring of outlier provider audits, and that high-cost durable medical equipment (DME) and laboratory tests be limited to established patients, unless providers are part of APMs. To improve data quality, the BPC suggests CMS simplify telehealth billing and develop additional guidance for providers to ensure uniformity and coding accuracy. Lastly, the BPC recommends requiring MedPAC complete a formal evaluation of post-PHE telehealth impacts on access, quality, patient outcomes, and cost to truly determine long-term trends and policies. BPC’s report is extremely thorough and highlights the many issues policymakers are facing in contemplating permanent telehealth policies. Some of BPC’s attempts to balance recommendations and exceptions to address concerns raise additional complexities behind the considerations further showcasing where policymakers and future research should focus. For instance, in terms of audio-only, BPC notes that continued coverage is critical for beneficiaries lacking broadband and technology access, although additional restrictions should be adopted to address concerns related to quality and potential for overuse. However, policymakers should consider whether these additional restrictions may ultimately limit the access the report describes as critical. In terms of payment parity, BPC notes that it has been an important tool to increase access to care and ensure that practitioners provide telehealth services. However, given payer and policymaker concerns, BPC recommends that perhaps the best post-PHE policy would be to cover certain telehealth services at higher rates than pre-PHE rates, but not necessarily equivalent to in-person rates. That may go against other recommendations in the BPC report to simplify telehealth billing, although ultimately BPC does state that CMS should look carefully at cost differentials when determining appropriate rates. Since many providers state that the cost and time of providing services via telehealth and in-person are equivalent it is important that researchers and policymakers look carefully at that issue. In addition, BPC suggests that different reimbursement rates may ensure access to in-person services, yet also states that parity in rates ensures access to telehealth services, showing the difficulty in sufficiently balancing these various considerations. Researchers and policymakers must pay careful attention to all perspectives and data around these issues in order to truly ensure telehealth’s ability to increase access to necessary health care. For additional details on BPC’s findings and recommendations, please view the report in its entirety. See original article: https://mailchi.mp/cchpca/bipartisanpolicycenter-report-highlights-telehealth-policy-considerations-recommends-2-year-extension-of-federal-flexibilities-further-research < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth’s Newest Frontier: Emergency Medicine Sai Balasubramanian, M.D., J.D. May 24, 2022 Telehealth has been a prominent buzzword for the last few years. With the emergence of Covid-19 and a newfound respect for remote healthcare services, telehealth/telemedicine have been a large focus of healthcare organizations and physicians alike. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides a broad definition: “Telehealth — sometimes called telemedicine — lets your doctor provide care for you without an in-person office visit. Telehealth is done primarily online with internet access on your computer, tablet, or smartphone.” Within the realm of this definition, telehealth doesn’t exactly sound like something that the practice of emergency medicine (EM) would embrace, given that the very nature of EM entails high acuity, critical care. Despite this paradox, however, EM as a specialty is slowly adapting in order to better utilize this transformative technology. In fact, there are a variety of different telehealth modalities slowly being introduced into the world of EM. HHS breaks it into five different potential categories of use: Tele-Triage: using telehealth modalities to determine the acuity of a patient’s injuries and the care and resources required Tele-Emergency Care: “Tele-emergency medicine connects providers at a central hub emergency department to providers and patients at spoke hospitals (often small, remote, or rural) through video or similar telehealth technology.” Virtual Rounds: monitoring emergency department patients remotely, reducing the number of physical providers and physicians needed on-site E-Consults: providers and physicians can seek consultations or specialty management for patients Telehealth for Follow-Up Care: “Telehealth technology can also be used to provide follow-up care for patients who were triaged but not sent to the emergency department, or for patients after they are discharged from the emergency department.” The American Medical Association recently published an article that corroborates this concept. Tanya Henry, Contributing News Writer for the AMA, explains that a recent AMA Telehealth Immersion Program in conjunction with American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) discussed innovative ways by which telemedicine can become a mainstream modality for emergency care. The article quotes the chair of ACEP’s telehealth section, Aditi Joshi, M.D.: “Emergency medicine doesn’t take place in one spot in the hospital and emergency physicians are trained to take care of emerging acute care situations in any setting,” including telehealth. Congruently, training programs are gearing up to prepare for this. Take for example The George Washington University’s (GWU) Department of Emergency Medicine, which offers a Telemedicine & Digital Health Fellowship. The program’s purpose “is to develop future leaders in telemedicine and digital health […and…] enable physicians to develop clinical competence in the delivery of telemedicine, leadership in establishing new programs, basic technical knowledge of telehealth delivery, and experience in order to significantly impact the rapidly growing and changing field of telemedicine, telehealth, remote health monitoring, and mobile health.” Thomas Jefferson University also offers something similar: the Telehealth Leadership Fellowship. This program’s core focus is four-fold: Leadership Skills Development, Entrepreneurship, Academia & Research, and Clinical Experience, all within the larger realm of telehealth. Indeed, telehealth has already rapidly expanded into other medical specialties, including neurology, cardiology, and primary care settings. Notably, an important benefit of this new modality is that it enables access to care and access to trained medical professionals for otherwise underserved populations and communities. Assuredly, time will tell the significant impact that emergency medicine joining the ranks of potential uses of telehealth will undoubtedly have in the years to come. For more information: https://www.forbes.com/sites/saibala/2022/05/24/telehealths-newest-frontier-emergency-medicine/?sh=76d5908f61cb < Previous News Next News >

Trends in Telehealth: CCHP's 50 State Telehealth Policy Summary Report, Fall 2022 Center for Connected Health Policy October 18, 2022 Today the Center for Connected Health Policy (CCHP) is releasing its bi-annual summary of state telehealth policy changes for Fall 2022. Additionally, we are also making available a summary chart showing where states stand on many key telehealth policies, as well as an infographic highlighting our key findings. The most current information in CCHP’s online policy finder tool may be exported for each state into a PDF document. The Fall 2022 summary report adds in two new jurisdictions, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, and covers updates in state telehealth policy made between July and early September 2022. Note that in some cases, after a state was reviewed by CCHP, it is possible that the state may have passed a significant piece of legislation or implemented an administrative policy change that CCHP may not have captured. In those instances, the changes will be reviewed and catalogued in the upcoming Spring 2023 edition of CCHP’s Summary Report. As in previous editions, information in the policy finder remains organized into three categories: Medicaid reimbursement, private payer laws and professional requirements. Additionally, for this edition, CCHP received support from the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) through funding from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to create a specific category on federally qualified health center (FQHC) Medicaid fee-for-service policies. FQHCs have many unique rules that apply to them that sometimes effect their ability to utilize telehealth, such as the definition of a visit/encounter in the Medicaid program. The new FQHC category takes these considerations into account and will help FQHCs be able to more easily navigate to the policies that specifically affect them. See full article: https://mailchi.mp/cchpca/just-released-cchps-50-state-telehealth-policy-summary-report-fall-2022trends-in-telehealth-policy < Previous News Next News >

Apply Now: $250 M in Telehealth Grants National Council for Behavioral Health April 30, 2021 Telehealth Grants - Apply Now Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opened its second phase of the COVID-19 Telehealth Program with an additional $250 million available to eligible providers, including community mental health and substance use organizations. Organizations are strongly encouraged to apply for the grants that may be used to fund technology and equipment to bolster service delivery via telehealth. The application will close at 12:00pm ET on May 6, 2021. Read more and reach out here with any specific questions on the application process. COVID-19 Telehealth Program Application Resources: https://www.usac.org/about/covid-19-telehealth-program/covid-19-telehealth-program-application-resources/?mkt_tok=NzczLU1KRi0zNzkAAAF8wn-qjbshy_rZnI19Utm_szbXLRtL_Em1obbBZMPGjL8UcKptxsAQkufy8_qpLAJ8F7YLbidFX_B4uUKtfjz1Xqfb00kuVsv-2qjkBEx3 COVID-19 Telehealth Program (Invoices & Reimbursements): https://www.fcc.gov/covid-19-telehealth-program-invoices-reimbursements?mkt_tok=NzczLU1KRi0zNzkAAAF8wn-qjeRoIRGRmJOwVOAO8DxtchsnKpit1UbNY_hCbZZVDnK6jxX-VTendryRdaw0BeLxWnFcR90xotZs6ikzMrcjjvHZgcWX3tpv1reh Questions: Round2TelehealthApplicationSupport@usac.org < Previous News Next News >

New Wave of Federal Bipartisan Bills to Expand Telehealth Center for Connected Health Policy June 2021 A good majority of the recently introduced bills focus on increasing telehealth reimbursement, however a few look to increase funding for telehealth services and infrastructure. At present, CCHP is tracking over 100 pieces of telehealth legislation in the current federal legislative session. This month we have seen a number of bipartisan bills introduced, continuing the federal push to expand telehealth availability and codify flexibilities allowed during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE). A good majority of the recently introduced bills focus on increasing telehealth reimbursement, however a few look to increase funding for telehealth services and infrastructure. It is notable the significant amount of support from both sides of the aisle for telehealth. For instance, representatives Dan Newhouse (R-WA) and Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ) introduced the Rural Remote Monitoring Patient Act (HR 4008) that would establish a pilot grant program to support the use of remote patient monitoring in rural areas. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced as part of a package of telehealth bills a reintroduction of a bill similar to legislation from 2020 titled the Telehealth Health Savings Account (HSA) Act (S 2097). The Telehealth HSA Act would allow employers to offer high-deductible health plans that include telehealth services without limiting employees’ ability to use health savings accounts. According to Kennedy’s press release, “a current IRS regulation stops employees from making or receiving contributions to HSAs if they hold a high-deductible health plan that waives the deductible for telehealth services, meaning employees holding high-deductible health plans often need to pay out of pocket for telehealth services. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act (HR 748) temporarily waived this regulation, but S 2110 would make the waiver permanent.” We have also seen a few of the recent bills look at audio-only and codifying pandemic telehealth flexibilities. The Protecting Rural Telehealth Access Act (S 1988) by Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and also sponsored by Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), would: *Allow payment parity for audio-only telehealth services *Make permanent the ability for patients to be treated at home *Let rural health clinics (RHCs) and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) serve as distant sites for telehealth services The Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act of 2021 by Representative Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), introduced with Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI), makes the following permanent changes: *Removes originating site and geographical limitations *Maintains telehealth flexibilities for RHCs/FQHCs *Expands coverage for audio-only services *Removes restrictions that limit clinicians’ ability to remotely monitor and track patient health and provide them access to innovative digital devices Additionally, we have seen bipartisan support around broadband legislation, such as from Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Angus King (I-Maine), and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who recently introduced legislation which seeks to address the digital divide. Their Broadband Reform and Investment to Drive Growth in the Economy (BRIDGE) Act of 2021 would allow states to deploy “future-proof” networks able to meet communities’ broadband needs, including supporting local initiatives on affordability, adoption, and inclusion. According to Bennet’s press release, The BRIDGE Act would: *Provide $40 billion to States, Tribal Governments, and U.S. Territories for affordable, high- speed broadband *Prioritize unserved, underserved, and high-cost areas with investments in “future proof” networks *Encourage gigabit-level internet wherever possible while raising the minimum speeds for new broadband networks to at least 100/100 Mbps, with flexibility for areas where this is technologically or financially impracticable *Emphasize affordability and inclusion by requiring at least one affordable option *Increase choice and competition by empowering local and state decision-making, lifting bans against municipal broadband networks, and allowing more entities to compete for funding Lastly, additional information was just released regarding Cures 2.0 – another bipartisan bill, which creates the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), a President Biden budget request proposal. According to a discussion draft and section-by-section summary, Cures 2.0 will address a variety of areas, including telehealth access, while incorporating and building upon several additional bipartisan bills, such as the Telehealth Improvement for Kids’ Essential Services (TIKES) Act (H.R. 1397 / S. 1798) and Telehealth Modernization Act (H.R. 1332 / S. 368). The telehealth provisions proposed in Cures 2.0 include: *Review the impact of telehealth on patient health and encourage better collaboration *Provide guidance and strategies to states on effectively integrating telehealth into their Medicaid program and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) *Make many of the COVID-19 PHE flexibilities post-pandemic permanent, such as: -Removing the geographic and originating site restrictions -Expanding the range of health care providers that can be reimbursed by Medicare for furnishing telehealth services to any health care professional eligible to bill Medicare -Enhancing telehealth services for use by FQHCs, RHCs, hospices, and for home dialysis The authors anticipate that the Cures 2.0 bill will be introduced in the coming weeks and hope to see it signed in the fall. While the fate of these telehealth bills is yet to be seen, it does seem to highlight strong federal support for expanding access to telehealth post PHE with such a large amount of bipartisanship support behind them. Given Medicare’s historically conservative approach in regard to telehealth pre-PHE, any additional shift would be significant. CCHP will continue to update its tracking tools and monitor the ever evolving telehealth landscape as we continue to move through the current federal legislative session. < Previous News Next News >

Health Care Disparities and Access to Video Visits Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from a Patient Survey in Primary Care Emily C. Webber, Brock D. McMillen, and Deanna R. Willis May 11, 2022 Abstract Background:In 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement structure was relaxed to aid in the rapid adoption nationally of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to limited access to internet service, cellular phone data, and appropriate devices, many patients may be excluded from telemedicine services. Methods:In this study, we present the findings of a survey of patients at an urban primary care clinic regarding their access to the tools needed for telemedicine before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients provided information about their access to internet services, phone and data plans, and their perceived access to and interest in telemedicine. The survey was conducted in 2019 and then again in September of 2020 after expansion of telemedicine services. Results:In 2019, 168 patients were surveyed; and in 2020, 99 patients participated. In both surveys, 30% of respondents had limited phone data, no data, or no phone at all. In 2019, the patient responses showed a statistically significant difference in phone plan types between patients with different insurance plans (p < 0.10), with a higher proportion (39%) of patients with Medicaid or Medicaid waiver having a prepaid phone or no phone at all compared with patients with commercial insurance (26%). The overall awareness rate increased from 17% to 43% in the 2020 survey. Conclusions:This survey illustrated that not all patients had access to devices, cellular data, and internet service, which are all needed to conduct telemedicine. In this survey, patients with Medicaid or Medicaid waiver insurance were less likely to have these tools than those with a commercial payor. Finally, patients' access to these telemedicine tools correlated with their interest in using telemedicine visits. Providing equitable telemedicine care requires attention to and mitigation strategies for these gaps in access. Introduction Telemedicine and virtual care expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. Fueled by necessity among health care providers and systems to deliver patient care, adoption was also driven by removal of barriers and expanded Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement models. In March 2020, CMS authorized Medicare beneficiaries to receive telehealth at any location, including their homes.1 Subsequent waivers increased the scope of Medicare telehealth services, including a wider array of practitioners. Finally, the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights announced that it would waive penalties for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations against health care providers who were using everyday communication technologies to provide telehealth services.2 These combined changes resulted in millions of additional telehealth visits. CMS data from March and June of 2020 showed an increase from 13,000 beneficiaries using telehealth before the public health emergency to 1.7 million in the last week of April 2020.3 These CMS expansions were made permanent in January 2021.4 Despite these expansions, not all patients are positioned to take advantage of the adoption of telemedicine and virtual care. The digital divide or lack of access to reliable high-speed internet is a well-described gap, made worse in 2020, as many entities turned to virtual solutions to work, study, and conduct business as usual. Nearly 42 million people in the United States may not have the ability to purchase broadband internet as of February 2020,5 disproportionately impacting communities of color as well as low socioeconomic status.6 Finally, according to BroadbandNow, an estimated 1.35 million (20%) residents in Indiana are unserved by broadband internet providers at their home address.7 At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, precautions such as stay-at-home orders and business, municipal, and school shutdowns eliminated public options for internet access. Addressing these gaps is a critical step in preventing worsening inequities in access to care.8 In this study, we surveyed patients in an urban primary care clinic to determine their access to internet and devices, readiness, and barriers to utilizing telemedicine and virtual health care. Methods In August 2019, patients from a primary care clinic located in central Indianapolis, Indiana, participated in a 10-question quality improvement survey. The Institutional Review Board reviewed and determined the survey to be exempt. Each patient arriving at the clinic over a 2-day period was given the chance to participate. The paper survey included questions about home internet and device access, phone plan and phone data adequacy, and interest in virtual visits (see Supplementary Data for full survey). The patient's insurance coverage information was captured on the paper survey form by the staff before handing the form to the patient. The results were assessed using chi-square tests to determine differences between payor groups. A linear regression model was utilized to analyze the association of phone plan data adequacy with interest in video visits. Following the results of the first survey, efforts to improve adoption of virtual visits were undertaken, including office signage promoting virtual visits, offering a virtual visit follow-up at checkout, visual cues to prompt providers to schedule virtual follow-ups, and scripting for appointment schedulers to include offering virtual visits at the time of scheduling. In September 2020, the same quality improvement survey was repeated from the same clinic during an active time period of COVID-19 to see if additional quality improvement efforts were warranted. One additional question was added to the 2020 survey: “How has your ability to do a video visit changed since the onset of COVID-19?” The results were assessed using chi-square tests between payor groups. A linear regression model was utilized to analyze the association of phone plan data adequacy with interest in video visits. Scheduled appointments were tracked weekly by type and audited for completion throughout the study period. Video visits that could not be completed using video were converted to telephone visits and counted as telephone visits. For FULL article: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/tmj.2021.0126 Published Online:11 May 2022https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2021.0126 < Previous News Next News >

Transgender Telemedicine and Telehealth Services: A Tremendous Asset Dr. Maheu, Telehealth.org August 2021 Telehealth services can also be effective in reaching communities not isolated by location but marginalized by identity. One of the most significant arguments for telehealth services is their ability to reach people in underserved communities. Telehealth.org described some of the foundational issues in its article The Future of Telehealth, Teletherapy, and Telemedicine. The article specifically highlighted telehealth as a means of overcoming geographic limitations. However, telehealth services can also be similarly effective in reaching communities not isolated by location but marginalized by identity. In particular, transgender telemedicine & telehealth services provide significant benefits to the trans community. Challenges Facing the Transgender Community Telehealth.org outlined many challenges facing transgender individuals seeking services in its article Transgender Telemedicine: Inequities and Barriers in Health Care Access. In seeking therapy services, one of the most substantial dissuading factors reported by transgender individuals is fear of discrimination. This fear does not come without significant evidence. Last year, the Supreme Court decided to extend trans individuals the same discrimination protections other groups already experience under employment laws. Even after that landmark decision, 38% of Americans still indicate they do not support the rights of trans people. With so-called bathroom bills and legislation that prevents trans girls and women from participating on sports teams for women, the current American legislative landscape continues to be challenging. Location and marginalization often intersect. Trans individuals living in rural areas often face a general lack of available services. Additionally, available clinicians usually do not have a trans-informed perspective. Similar concerns exist in politically conservative areas. How Transgender Telemedicine and Telehealth Services Help the Trans Community As noted above, telehealth services have already been an asset to assist individuals who are geographically isolated. It should be just as effective in reaching trans individuals in those areas as helping others. For those isolated by discrimination and fear of discrimination due to their trans status, telehealth can also help. By allowing people in the trans community to reach beyond their geographic limitations, they immediately have access to a larger pool of supportive clinicians who can provide trans-informed services. Telehealth transgender services also provide increased anonymity to a degree for trans people. In many of rural America’s small towns, people know each other by vehicle. Seeing someone’s vehicle parked in front of a mental health or drug treatment facility can often send the town’s gossip mill into a tailspin. By accessing discrete trans telemedicine or telehealth services to their homes, people avoid this harmful exposure. Can Transgender Telemedicine & Telehealth Services Continue? Trans individuals used telehealth 20 times more in the past 18 months than they ever have before. This new safe therapy avenue, however, may not last. Just two weeks ago, four states either ended many of their telehealth expansion policies or announced their intention to do so. Federally, the waivers introduced by the CARES Act will expire in October unless renewed or made permanent. The system is in transition and it may well end up leaving behind some of the progress it has made. Transgender Telemedicine and Telehealth Advocacy The time is now to reach out to your officials, state and federal, and advocate for more permanent laws that expand telehealth services and reimbursement. Sharing case examples without client identifying information and your passion for the issue could be just the sort of personal advocacy needed. Your voice may persuade elected officials to act quickly and empathetically on behalf of the trans community and everyone else who will benefit from telehealth support. Rural Transgender Report: https://www.lgbtmap.org/file/Rural-Trans-Report-Nov2019.pdf < Previous News Next News >

Expansion of Telehealth Services Must Be Sustained Gerald E. Harmon, MD American Medical Association President July 2021 Now it’s time to cement that success by making permanent the temporary easing of restrictions that brought the full potential of telehealth into focus. The rapid growth and large-scale adoption of telehealth services over the past 18 months has allowed physicians to deliver a broad range of badly needed services to patients nationwide in an innovative, cost-effective manner. Now it’s time to cement that success by making permanent the temporary easing of restrictions that brought the full potential of telehealth into focus. Congress can brighten this picture by passing legislation already introduced into the current session that enjoys bipartisan support. Among other steps that need to be taken, the pending legislation—CONNECT for Health Act of 2021 (S 1512) and the Telehealth Modernization Act (HR 1332)—would strip away all geographic restrictions placed on telehealth services and allow Medicare recipients to receive this care in their own homes, rather than being forced to travel to an authorized health care center to receive it. Although this provision has been waived for the duration of the public health emergency trigged by the COVID-19 pandemic, the ability to provide telehealth services directly to patients regardless of their location will be lost unless Congress acts. Physicians and their patients who have witnessed firsthand the immense benefits and value of telehealth services must not be forced to stop using these widely available tools for better health simply because the pandemic is over. Telehealth has improved health care The benefits of telehealth are obvious. Telehealth enables physicians to strengthen continuity of care, extend access outside of normal clinic hours, and ease the impact of clinician shortages in rural areas and among underserved populations. By increasing the quantity and quality of communication between patients and physicians, telehealth has strengthened the trust that lies at the center of this relationship. Telehealth can slice overall health care costs by helping physician practices and health care systems better manage diabetes, heart disease and other chronic illnesses while increasing the overall quality of care and patient satisfaction. This technology can also prevent patients from delaying care for conditions that, if undetected and untreated, can trigger emergency department visits or lengthy hospital stays. Wide-ranging case-study examples of the comprehensive value that virtual care can provide are featured in the AMA’s Return on Health research issued in May. And let’s not forget the value of telehealth services to patients with impaired mobility, the immunocompromised, frail or elderly individuals who require the aid of a caregiver to travel, and those who cannot arrange the transportation or child care they need to receive care. The enhanced opportunities telehealth affords to assess the impact of patients’ social determinants of health lays the groundwork for better treatment and improved health outcomes for historically marginalized and minoritized communities. The widespread expansion of telehealth services we have witnessed serves all of these patient populations and others in an efficient and cost-effective manner that must be sustained. While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has expanded its coverage for telehealth services during the pandemic, only action by Congress will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries will enjoy full access to those services once the pandemic is behind us. The expansion of telehealth covered by Medicare at payment parity with in-person services during the COVID-19 public health emergency includes more than 150 services, including emergency department visits, hospital admissions and discharges, critical care and home care, to name just a few. Offering this equivalency remains a critical factor in ensuring that physician practices can cover the additional costs tied to virtual care provision. How we support greater telehealth adoption Our AMA’s commitment to telehealth technologies grows stronger each day. For example, our Telehealth Immersion Program helps individual physicians, physician practices and health systems expand and optimize telehealth services through interactive peer-to-peer training sessions, curated webinars, clinical best practices, virtual care boot camps and other assets. Additional resources, including a Telehealth Quick Guide, Telehealth Playbook, and STEPS Forward™ telehealth training module, are just three more examples among many available on our website. The Digital Medicine Payment Advisory Group is a collaborative initiative convened by the AMA to help integrate digital medicine technologies into clinical practice by knocking down barriers to widespread adoption while zeroing in on comprehensive solutions for issues with coding, reimbursement, coverage and related factors. The mission of this diverse cross section of nationally recognized digital medicine experts includes: Reviewing existing code sets—particularly CPT® and HCPCS—to ensure they accurately reflect current digital medicine services and technologies. Assessing factors that affect the fair and accurate valuation of services delivered in this manner. Providing information and clinical expertise that promotes widespread coverage of telehealth, remote patient monitoring and all other digital medicine services, including increased transparency of services covered by payers and improved enforcement of parity coverage laws. The expansion of physician-based telehealth services in 2020 ranks as one of the most important advances in health care delivery in many years. Allowing this progress to slip from our hands because of outdated and arbitrary restrictions will result in higher costs and poorer health outcomes for patients everywhere. The decisions made and the policies adopted in the near future will shape the direction of telehealth services for many years to come. We urge Congress and the Biden administration to take the steps necessary to build on the progress in virtual care we’ve made thus far while laying the foundation for greater innovation going forward. < Previous News Next News >

Recent DOJ Fraud Charges Include Few Details and Links to Telehealth Center for Connected Health Policy June 2021 The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced criminal charges against a variety of individuals related to various alleged COVID-19 fraud schemes. One of the kickback schemes does appear to include a telehealth element. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced criminal charges against a variety of individuals related to various alleged COVID-19 fraud schemes. Most of the new cases appear to be related to fraudulent testing claims and kickback schemes, although one of the kickback schemes does appear to include a telehealth element. According to the DOJ press release, two Florida men – a consultant as well as a Texas laboratory owner – allegedly exploited temporary telehealth waivers by offering providers access to Medicare beneficiaries for whom they could bill consultations. In return, the providers referred the patients to that laboratory for potentially unnecessary cancer and cardiovascular genetic testing. Despite potentially misleading headlines, most charges appear to only be against executives and additional details directly tying the fraud to telehealth and the correspondence, billing, and waivers in question have yet to be released. As one updated mHealth Intelligence article later noted, “the charges try to link fraud cases to telehealth coverage, but are more closely aligned with telefraud.” For more information read the full DOJ press release - https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/doj-announces-coordinated-law-enforcement-action-combat-health-care-fraud-related-covid-19. < Previous News Next News >

Patients prefer telehealth for common illnesses, study shows Bill Siwicki November 23, 2022 But more than half are concerned about the quality of care they're receiving, according to the Software Advice survey. One of the firm's analysts dives into the results. Telemedicine has, at long last, become very popular. But lingering concerns remain on its effectiveness for certain diagnoses and treatments. Software Advice's 2022 State of Telemedicine Survey finds that while a majority of people prefer virtual appointments for common illnesses, more than half of patients still are concerned about the quality of care they're receiving. Software Advice, a Gartner company, polled more than 1,000 patients on telemedicine usage after the worst of the pandemic – regarding whether they intend to keep using it and improvements that can be made. We interviewed Lisa Hedges, associate principal analyst at Software Advice, to discuss the findings of the study and talk about the future of telemedicine. Q. What is the overarching message healthcare CIOs and other health IT leaders should take from your study? A. That failure to invest in telemedicine is downright foolish at this point. It's been around for a long time and fully took off during the pandemic. It isn't going anywhere now that so many patients have experienced the convenience it offers. This also means if you are one of the healthcare organizations that adopted telehealth during the pandemic and plan to eliminate those tools in the near future, you're making a mistake. The bottom line here is that telemedicine is a valuable tool for patients, and providers who offer remote care services for certain conditions and symptoms are going to have the edge over providers who don't. Q. About 86% of patients rate their telemedicine experience as positive; 91% are more likely to choose a provider that offers telemedicine. Why do you think this is, and what does it mean for healthcare provider organizations? A. Convenience and ease of use are top reasons patients like telemedicine, and that certainly makes sense when you consider the time it saves. Patients don't have to drive to a physical office, find parking, spend time in a waiting room (where they may be exposed to other contagions), and then drive back home once the appointment is over. All of that is hassle enough even without considering the fact that most people going to see doctors don't feel great, so their baseline before doing any of that is discomfort. What this means for providers is they're looking at a great opportunity. We're all well aware of the current shortage of qualified healthcare workers, and we know that the working conditions for healthcare staff have been particularly brutal during the pandemic. With so many employees quitting, it's left a lot of extra work behind for those who have stayed on, which leads to more burnout and even more turnover. If practices can find a way to alleviate that burden, though, they're going to make life better for their employees. Telemedicine can do this by shortening the average exam time, nearly eliminating patient wait times, reducing the average number of no-shows, and saving money by cutting down on operational costs. All of these things can directly or indirectly impact the quality of life for healthcare workers and for patients. Q. Only 49% prefer telemedicine visits for mental health treatment, despite it being one of the more remote-ready specialties. What does this finding say for the future of telepsychiatry? A. This is a great question that a lot of people are puzzling over. Mental healthcare does seem to be an ideal match for telemedicine, specifically the use of video conferencing to conduct therapy sessions. So, I was a little surprised that more patients in our survey didn't indicate a preference for telemedicine. But there are a couple of things to consider here. First, we didn't collect data on patient history, so not every participant in our survey has experience seeking mental health treatment. That could be a factor in this dataset. Second, 19% indicated no preference between telehealth and in-person appointments for mental health treatment when we asked this question, which means only 32% prefer in-person mental health appointments. So, it's still the majority of patients saying telehealth is their favorite option for mental healthcare. As far as what this means for the future of teletherapy, I don't think it's any huge concern. It could simply be that some patients are still warming up to the idea of having intimate conversations with a therapist through a computer screen. It could be an age thing. It could be something else. Regardless, I suspect that if we were to run this survey annually for the next few years, that 49% would increase every time. Q. One-third of patients worry that an in-person exam, lab work or other testing is critical to properly diagnose and treat patients. How can telemedicine jump this hurdle? A. I'm not convinced telemedicine needs to jump this hurdle to prove itself valuable. Sure, there are incredible advancements being made in remote patient monitoring tools and other wearable devices that can help diagnose patients from a distance, but I think it's equally worth noting that telemedicine is a tool to be used in the right circumstances – it's not a one-size-fits-all approach to medicine. Yes, for a lot of medical conditions, doctors actually have to see the patient to perform physical tests. Those situations aren't ideal for telemedicine, and we shouldn't be thinking of them as hurdles – or even failures. If, instead, we reframe our thinking so that we recognize the situations that are ideal for telemedicine appointments – those that don't require physical tests for diagnosis, such as mental healthcare or common ailments like upper respiratory infection – we can see that telemedicine is a deeply valuable tool as it stands. So, to answer your question, the real hurdle for telemedicine here is teaching patients when it is best used instead of needing to find ways to provide lab work or physical exams remotely. In essence: It's a messaging problem instead of a technology problem. The good news is patients seem to be recognizing this on their own. If you look at patient preferences for in-person appointments versus telemedicine appointments broken down by symptom in our report, you see that patients intuitively understand which symptoms are best treated remotely and which are more likely to need physical exams. Twitter: @SiwickiHealthIT Email the writer: bsiwicki@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/patients-prefer-telehealth-common-illnesses-study-shows < 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 >

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 >

Can digital health increase accessibility as mental health needs soar? HIMSS TV December 23, 2021 Deep Dive: Many adults with a mental illness won’t be able to access care, given greater levels of anxiety and depression during the pandemic. Digital tools can help. Learn more here: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/video/can-digital-health-increase-accessibility-mental-health-needs-soar < Previous News Next News >

GAO Reports on Telehealth and COVID-19 Flexibility Findings Center for Connected Health Policy June 2021 While the GAO reported telehealth flexibilities as critical to reducing obstacles of care, they also stressed considering its potential to increase program expenditures and stated that the quality of telehealth services has still not been fully analyzed. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) released testimony May 19th regarding their ongoing assessment of COVID-19 flexibilities within the Medicare and Medicaid programs, as required under federal pandemic response oversight provisions included the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Provided before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, the GAO focused its summarized findings around the effects of program flexibilities and preliminary observations related to telehealth waivers of certain federal requirements, as well as considerations regarding ongoing use. Telehealth waivers included allowing services to be provided remotely in all areas and settings, as well as expanding the types of providers and technologies that could be used, such as audio-only modalities. While the GAO reported telehealth flexibilities as critical to reducing obstacles of care, they also stressed considering its potential to increase program expenditures and stated that the quality of telehealth services has still not been fully analyzed. GAO testimony highlighted Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data on recent telehealth utilization: -Medicare telehealth services increased from 325,000 services in mid-March to 1.9 million in late-April; then decreased to 1.3 million by June as it continued to steadily drop -Nearly 40% of beneficiaries received office visits through telehealth; nearly 60% received mental health services via telehealth -Internists and family practitioners were the primary provider specialties using telehealth, through which they delivered one-quarter of their services -89 of the 146 newly available types of telehealth services could be furnished via landline phones -More beneficiaries under age 65 received services via telehealth than those over age 65 -More beneficiaries in urban areas received services via telehealth than those in rural areas -Similar proportions of beneficiaries across all racial and ethnic groups received services via telehealth When highlighting potential considerations moving forward, the GAO added that preliminary observations show that due to lack of broadband and digital literacy, access to services via live video telehealth continues to be limited among those with low socioeconomic status, those over age 85, and those in communities of color. Given that CMS information indicated that telehealth services have continued as in-person visits have been able to increase, the GAO also suggested considering the potential for increased spending if payment parity requirements related to telehealth are maintained post-pandemic. In relation to fraud and program integrity, the GAO discussed the inability of CMS to determine many aspects of telehealth services, such as type of modality and specific location data, as well as the suspension of security rules that raise potential medical information privacy issues. In regard to quality of care via telehealth considerations, the GAO cited a study specific to Direct-to-Consumer telehealth companies potentially overprescribing antibiotics as their primary example, adding that CMS is still exploring how to measure quality related to services provided via telehealth. GAO information was based upon interviews of federal and state officials and provider and patient groups regarding their telehealth experiences, in addition to reviews of federal laws and CMS guidance. Additional GAO data and reports can be found on their website. < Previous News Next News >

Contact SBRL Community Contacts Get answers to your Federal and State broadband questions: New Mexico broadband contacts Federal broadband contacts Contacts for New Mexico broadband questions: Rand Tilton, NM Department of Informatio n Technology (NM DoIT)/Broadband Rand.Tilton@state.nm.us Gar Clarke, NM DoIT Geospatial Program Manager Presented October 2021 webinar: "NM Broadband and What’s Next." Recording: HERE Sli des: HERE NM Broadband Program (NMBBP ): Online Interactive Broadband Map Statewide Broadband Strategic Plan (June 2020) NM Speed Tester New Mexico Contacts for Federal broadband questions: U.S. Senator Ben Ray Lujan: Sen. Lujan wants to know about telehealth or broadband barriers and successes you have experienced. Telehealth barriers and successes: M e lanie_Goodman@lujan.senate.gov Health polic y matters: Calli_Shapiro@lujan.senate.gov Broadband and telecommunications matters: Jeffrey_Lopez@lujan.senate.gov. Senator Ben Ray Lujan's recording about New Mexico telehealth: HERE Federal

Telehealth Waivers Wind Down, Restricting Some Providers From Delivering Care Across State Lines Hailey Mensik August 2021 States allowed medical professionals licensed elsewhere to hold virtual visits with their residents during the pandemic. Some are making the rollbacks permanent, but others are reversing again. State lawmakers temporarily scrapped hundreds of regulations early in the COVID-19 pandemic to help businesses and consumers deal with widespread shutdowns, giving patients greater access to telehealth and helping spur an explosion in use of virtual care. A number of states allowed medical professionals licensed elsewhere to hold telehealth visits with residents of their state during the pandemic, and some already have or are looking to make the rollbacks permanent. Exact numbers are difficult to track because some policies overlap and are organized differently in different states, but as of July 28, 17 states and the District of Columbia still had some type of telehealth waivers in place, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards. Other states like New York, Minnesota, Florida and Alaska are among those that have pulled back emergency waivers. Alaska is going back to its old ways after its governor's emergency order ended. Patients there can only visit telehealth providers licensed in the state now after about a year without that rule. The same goes for Florida after its emergency declaration expired on June 26. Meanwhile, Arizona lawmakers passed sweeping legislation in May making the state's pandemic-related telehealth waivers permanent, including requiring insurers to cover audio-only visits and allowing out-of-state medical professionals to conduct telehealth visits with patients in the state. Advocates for allowing providers to permanently deliver virtual care across state lines say it would help ease staffing shortages, help patients and doctors maintain existing relationships and benefit patients in isolated communities by making faraway specialists more accessible. But as long as medical licensing is regulated at the state level, the broad access to services and providers that existed during the pandemic won’t continue for everyone. Patients in rural areas are often far away from a doctor's office, and in states like Alaska where flexibilities expired, can be even further from providers practicing certain specialties, such as a pediatric intensivist or certain oncologists, said Mei Kwong, executive director for the Center for Connected Health Policy. "Maybe there aren't enough of those cases in those particular states to make it worth a provider's while to go and move there, but there's still a need because they may still have people who need those services," Kwong said. The patchwork of red tape could also pose a challenge for providers who have pivoted to delivering more virtual care over the past year. Mia Finkelston, a family medicine physician in Maryland, made the switch to telehealth nearly a decade ago and has been practicing with Amwell ever since. She's currently licensed in 29 states, and said the process to get her licenses varied widely. "It's not standard as far as fees, it's not standard as far as what documents you need to give them. It really is based on those state medical boards and what they decide is important to them," Finkelston said. As more states' waivers expire and others' rules change, one option for providers who want to continue delivering care across state lines is through the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which currently includes 30 states, the District of Columbia and Guam. Similar to the nurse licensure compact, it allows eligible physicians to practice in other compact states. It’s worth noting, however, that the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact does not issue a compact license or a nationally recognized medical license for physicians, but rather streamlines the process for them to receive multiple licenses from individual state medical boards. Physicians pay an initial $700 compact fee, then an additional cost for each license in any compact state they want to practice in. States must pass legislation to join the compacts. "No two states are totally alike in their legal and regulatory framework for the practice of medicine, which of course, affects telehealth, which is just one aspect of the overall US healthcare system," Kyle Zebley, director of public policy at the American Telehealth Association, a coalition with a board that includes representatives from hospitals like HCA and payers like CVS, said. "Therefore a way to be consistent with our federal system, consistent with the way that the practice of medicine has been done in this country for so long, we've come up with this great model of compact, which is a way to be consistent with all that while still allowing for care across state lines," Zebley said. As lawmakers try to facilitate continued access to telemedicine for those who need it most, licensure reforms will be key, the authors of a February article in the New England Journal of Medicine argue. "The growth of large national and regional health systems and the increased use of telemedicine have expanded the scope of health care markets beyond state borders," the authors said. They agree that a federal medical licensing system is the loftiest reform option and strengthening existing compacts is the way to go, suggesting Congress pass legislation to encourage holdout states to join the Interstate Medical Compact. Other options include encouraging states to practice reciprocity, where they automatically recognize an out-of-state license, as the Department of Veterans Affairs does with physicians in its system. Source: https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/telehealth-waivers-wind-down-restricting-some-providers-from-delivering-ca/603169/#:~:text=Healthcare%20Dive-,Telehealth%20waivers%20wind%20down%2C%20restricting%20some%20providers%20from%20delivering%20care,but%20others%20are%20reversing%20again. < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth Resources NMTHA's Telehealth Resources provide information on the following topics: New Mexico Organizations New Mexico Broadband Interstate Telemedicine Licensure Telehealth Organizations & Associations Teleheath Training COVID & Telemedicine NM Based Orgs NEW MEXICO ORGANIZATIONS Health Insight New Mexico New Mexico Association for Home & Hospice Care New Mexico Health Resources New Mexico Primary Care Association SYNCRONYS (New Mexico Health Information Exchange) University of New Mexico Center fo r Telehealth UNM Project ECHO NEW MEXICO BROADBAND NM Broadband Program Overview of Broadband Program - Videos Mapping Training Resources Strategic Planning INTERSTATE & TELEMEDICINE LICENSURE Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (NM is not yet a participant) Federation of State Medical Boards New Mexico Physician Licensure Requirements (including telemedicine) New Mexico Physician License Application instructions (see last page for telemedicine) NM Broadband Interstate Licensure TELEMEDICINE ASSOCIATIONS & ORGANIZATIONS American Telemedicine Association (ATA) Center for Connected Health Policy Center for Telehealth & e-Health Law Southwest Telehealth Resource Center National Library of Medicine National Telemedicine Initiative Office for the Advancement of Telehealth (Health Resources and Services Administration, DHHS) Telemed Associations Org. TELEHEALTH TRAINING Telemental Health Training : Providing healthcare organizations and clinicians with ethical, legal, technological, and clinical frameworks for conducting effective telehealth sessions. Telehealth Trainings : The Arizona Telemedicine Training Program and Southwest Telehealth Resource Center offer 1-day training courses on telemedicine and telehealth. National Consortium of Telehealth Resources : Building a telehealth program? Browse through our offerings from Telehealth Resource Centers. If you can’t find what you’re looking for, use our contact form or give us a call. We have an abundance of resources available! Weitzman Institute : Weitzman ECHO (Extension for Community Health Outcomes) provides specialty support for primary care providers seeking to gain expertise in management of certain complex illnesses and conditions, including COVID-19, MAT, Chronic Pain, and more. TH trainings New Mexico: A Leader in Telehealth Laws New Mexico has one of the most progressive telehealth statutes in the entire U.S. View Statutes Experts in Telehealth: An Interview Series A series of brief interviews from local and regional experts sharing experience, insights, and guidance on telehealth. Access Interviews Get answers from the NM Department of Information Technology (NM DoIT). Contact NM DoIT Broadband Questions? Contact U.S. Senator Ben Ray Lujan to discuss you r telehealth issues, ideas, and goals. Policy & Advocacy Contact Senator Lujan COVID & TELEMEDICINE NEWMEXICO.gov (Guidance for Providing Patient Care by Electronic Means During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.) NM Medicaid, COVID-19, and Telehealth Resources NM-HSD April 6, 2020: Special COVID-19 Supplement #3 – Guidance for New Mexico Medicaid Providers NRTRC COVID-19 and Telehealth Resources ATA COVID-19 Response Webinar Series eHealth Initiative COVID-19 News, Resources, and Events Weitzman Institute COVID-19 Resource Page An Analysis of Private Payer Telehealth Coverage During the COVID-19 Pandemic (Center for Connected Health Policy) UNM Resources: COVID-19 briefings COVID-19 practice guidelines COVID-19 therapeutic evidence Covid resources Top of Page NM Based Orgs NM Broadband Interstate Licensure Telemed Associations Org. TH trainings Covid resources

Telehealth Mini-Grants NM BHSD March 16, 2021 BHSD would like to announce the release of funding in the form of telehealth mini-grants. Deadline for receipt of letters of interest: 5 pm April 9, 2021 Please send letters of interest to: Cynthia Melugin at cynthia.melugin@state.nm.us To CYFD and BHSD Non-Medicaid Providers: Dear New Mexico Providers: BHSD would like to announce the release of funding in the form of telehealth mini-grants. When the COVID-19 public health emergency ends, BHSD will no longer be able to support behavioral health providers who are delivering behavioral health services through telehealth systems that are not HIPAA compliant. We are now offering funding to help providers come into compliance so that critical behavioral health services will not be disrupted. If your agency is currently delivering services using the telephone and/or another non-HIPAA compliant system, this grant could help you make the transition. BHSD is seeking letters of interest that respond to this question: what is your current telehealth system, and what do you need to become HIPAA compliant? Funding is available in amounts of up to $50,000 per agency, and all work must be completed by the end of 2021, which is when the PHE is currently set to expire. Letters of interest should include: • Specific hardware and/or software and costs • Training for staff and administrators and costs • Anticipated changes to practice model • How many practitioners/staff members do you expect to train • How many clients do you anticipate serving with your new system • Timeframe for making changes BHSD will expect any agency that receives funding to report back on progress made on each of these points. Deadline for receipt of letters of interest: 5 pm April 9, 2021 Please send letters of interest to: Cynthia Melugin at cynthia.melugin@state.nm.us < Previous News Next News >