Search this site

Telehealth May Help Reduce Medicine's Carbon Footprint Kat Jercich, Healthcare IT News July 2021 A wide-ranging study recently found that an increase in telehealth over the past six years corresponded with a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions due to transportation. A large-scale study recently published in The Journal of Climate Change and Health found that an increase in telehealth use in the Pacific Northwest corresponded to a dramatic decrease in transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. The study – a collaboration among researchers from Northwest Permanente, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School – examined six years of outpatient care at Kaiser Permanente Northwest, which serves more than 600,000 people in Oregon and Washington. "Prior to the pandemic, despite rising total visit volume, transportation-associated emissions were already declining due to a greater proportion of telehealth visits," observed the researchers. WHY IT MATTERS As the study notes, the healthcare sector is a "significant source" of greenhouse gas emissions. From 2010 to 2018, emissions from the U.S. healthcare industry increased by 6 percent. Although many of those emissions arise directly from facilities or indirectly from the supply chain, researchers note that patient transportation to clinics also plays a role in healthcare's carbon footprint. "To date, there are no large-scale studies of emissions reductions due to telehealth across an entire ambulatory system of a regional healthcare system in the United States, nor any studies showing the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare-associated [greenhouse gas] emissions as a result of rapid telehealth adoption," they explained. Team members looked back at the total number of in-person and telehealth visits from 2015 through 2020. They calculated the average distance between patients' home addresses and their assigned primary care clinics, and used Oregon Department of Transportation data about how individuals run errands to estimate what percentage of in-person trips were taken by car. They also assumed that telehealth visits replaced in-person visits on a 1:1 ratio (which may not be true, as other studies about downstream care have shown). Overall, in-person outpatient visits had increased at 1.5% per year through 2019 – but declined by 46.2% in 2020. Meanwhile, telehealth visits – which had already been increasing – jumped in 2020 by 108.5%. Researchers calculated that greenhouse gas emissions from patient travel due to transportation for primary care, specialty care and mental health visits fell from 19,659 tons CO2-eq in 2019 to 10,537 tons CO2-eq in 2020. "This reduction is primarily due to increased use of telehealth services as opposed to a decline in total annual visits during the pandemic and is evidenced by the total number of visits in 2020 being greater than prior years that had much larger total emissions," said researchers. "Nor is this reduction attributable to changes in fuel efficiency or transportation mode share over time, which are likely minimal on this time scale and were not modeled in this analysis," they added. The researchers argue that reductions in transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions "greatly eclipse" smaller increases associated with the use of computer equipment. The study has limitations: In addition to the 1:1 assumption mentioned above, researchers also pointed out that some visits would not have been conducted at a primary care clinic. In addition, they acknowledge that the Oregon DOT estimates may not represent medical appointment visits accurately. Still, "our study likely underestimates emissions reductions as we did not account for decreased commuting by healthcare providers conducting telehealth visits from home," the researchers wrote. "Furthermore, the environmental benefit of telehealth may not be limited to reductions in transportation-associated emissions if increased virtual care permits healthcare systems to care for more patients without increasing outpatient clinic space," they added. THE LARGER TREND Given the effect of climate change on the environment – and, in turn, on wellness, particularly for already vulnerable communities – many healthcare experts have called for action, with some noting the role that digital tools can play. In addition to preventative measures such as those outlined in the study, digital health tools may also help in the shorter term with regard to the consequences of climate change. When a winter storm tore through the southern United States earlier this year, for example, clinicians were able to keep seeing patients from their own homes. "If there are natural disasters, which we're seeing more and more of, because of global warming, we're hoping we'll be able to continue to provide care [via telehealth] through more weather events – like the freeze, like the hurricanes, and things of that nature," said William Kiefer, CEO of Chambers Health, a community-based system in Texas, in March. ON THE RECORD "If the U.S. healthcare system were to maintain or expand upon current levels of telehealth utilization, additional reductions in [greenhouse gas] emissions would potentially be achieved through impacts on practice design," said researchers in the new study. "Ambulatory visit carbon intensity would be an effective way to measure these changes." < Previous News Next News >

Video Archives Telehealth Educational Series - 2021 Play Video Share Whole Channel This Video Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Copy Link Link Copied Search videos Search video... Now Playing 53:29 Play Video FCC Rural Health Care Program Funding Opportunities Now Playing 01:00:09 Play Video New Mexico’s Telehealth Statute Simplified: What You Need to Know Now Playing 55:32 Play Video New Mexico Broadband A Brighter Future by Gar Clarke Now Playing 57:44 Play Video Show Me the Data: How COVID-19 Impacted Telehealth Claims & What's Next Now Playing 01:02:42 Play Video Telehealth and COVID - Lessons Learned by Van Roper, PhD Now Playing 01:00:26 Play Video HIPAA still applies: Safeguarding patient data in a work-from-anywhere world Now Playing 57:21 Play Video Developing Telehealth Workflow for the Best Possible Patient and Provider Experience Now Playing 56:01 Play Video Care Integration in the Time of Covid: Focus on Patient Experience Now Playing 01:00:43 Play Video Using Remote Monitoring Technology to Improve Patient Outcomes & Retain Staff

Southwest Telehealth News

Once a Temporary Convenience, Telehealth is Here to Stay Beth Wood August 2021 Multifaceted networks supporting virtual medical visits hailed as a positive legacy of pandemic Whether you call it telehealth, telemedicine, e-health, virtual or video visits, the electronic delivery of health care services is coming into its own. The coronavirus pandemic spurred federal, state and private insurance programs to offer more coverage of telehealth to encourage people to follow the stay-at-home rules established in mid-March 2020. “After this last year and the benefits we’ve seen, telehealth is definitely here to stay,” said Kiran Savage-Sangwan, speaking from Sacramento. She is the executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, a statewide health-advocacy organization. “The way we pay for healthcare has not robustly supported telehealth in the past,” Savage-Sangwan said. “The state has taken some interim steps before making permanent policy changes. The state will be extending the flexibilities for the Medi-Cal program through the end of next year, I believe, to continue to work out some of the policy issues.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of telehealth visits increased in the first quarter of 2020 by 50 percent, compared with the same period the year before. A single week in March 2020 showed a 154 percent increase, compared with the same period in 2019. Behind those numbers was a massive effort among health providers to accommodate this change. Even for UC San Diego Health, a pioneer in telehealth, the quick transition required an all-hands-on-deck approach. “We knew the shutdown would happen, but we didn’t know when,” recalled Marlene Millen, M.D., UC San Diego Health’s chief medical information officer for ambulatory care. “But our operational leads were already prepared for increasing video visits. Over the course of one weekend in March, we trained 1,000 doctors and staff. “We converted appointments and sent patients instructions. That very Monday, when everyone was supposed to be locking down, we were able to convert a couple of thousand appointments into video visits. That’s because we had a really good structure in place.” Millen spent the entire weekend at her home desk with multiple screens open, setting up online patient visits. An internal medicine physician, she has played a role in UC San Diego Health’s development of video visits for 10 years. About two or three years ago, she said, an app-based program was launched, which made it more accessible. But it wasn’t until the insurance coverage changed that telehealth’s potential could be tested. Until the shutdown, video visits were used for patients who had extreme obstacles to making in-person appointments. “Patients we targeted for these visits were ones with medical conditions who couldn’t come into the clinic,” Millen said. “They really embraced it. I had a patient in a wheelchair that had to be carried out of the house and another with a condition that made her use the bathroom all the time. Others had immune conditions. Then there were people who had to get on three buses to get to us. “Some of those patients were in danger of getting kicked out of insurance because of their number of no-shows. Video visits improved those situations. But it wasn’t a general-use case at that time.” Support for telehealth Now that pandemic restrictions have eased, the percentage of telehealth appointments versus in-person consultations has decreased in most of California. At UC San Diego Health, Millen noted, video visits rose to 30 percent during the early 2021 surge in COVID-19 cases. Video visits now account for between 15 and 20 percent of all appointments, a figure higher than prepandemic rates. As headlines attested, the pandemic put socioeconomic disparities in access to health care in stark relief. Some believe telehealth could provide a way to distribute health access more equitably. But there are hurdles. Many low-income people live in Wi-Fi deserts. Some have limited minutes on their smartphones, and others are unfamiliar with the technology. For some, finding a quiet private place in a multiperson home can be a challenge. “California has significant disparities — particularly by race, language and region — when it comes to health care access and health care outcomes,” Savage-Sangwan said. “Certainly, telehealth was helpful during the pandemic. “When people go into a medical office, various medical professionals assist them. Someone checks you in, someone takes your weight. People support you through the process. But when you’re accessing virtual care from home, you’re going to need to get that support a different way. “What we’ve seen to be successful is for the providers’ offices to build that into their workflow. Maybe someone calls you about your doctor’s appointment and would say: `'Hey, are you set up? Do you know how to use the platform? Let me walk you through it.’ We need to support people, so they are truly engaged in their health.” What’s telehealth friendly? Colonoscopies, mammograms and MRIs are obviously not possible through telehealth (at least not yet). But a lot can get done through a video visit, including assessing a medical problem and prescribing remedies for it. Millen, of UC San Diego Health, said her telehealth patients usually followed through on her instructions. She also noted that caregivers and family members became more engaged in video visits, particularly when she asked them to help with the exam. From monitoring diabetes and diagnosing a sinus infection to doing preliminary neurological tests and conducting speech therapy sessions, the use of telehealth has been wide ranging. “Before the pandemic, I would have definitely said: `'Yeah, there are some specialties that won’t be able to do video visits at all,’ ” Millen observed. “I was surprised how well our doctors and staff figured out how to get patient history and information.” Both Millen and Savage-Sangwan of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network think that behavioral health and counseling services are extremely telehealth friendly. Savage-Sangwan pointed out that the network’s community clinics had been experiencing a high rate of no-shows for these services before the pandemic. With telehealth, the number of no-shows dropped to almost zero. In general, telehealth has proved itself worthy of coming out of the prepandemic shadows and becoming a vital component of equitable healthcare. “I’m happy by how many video visits are still going on,” Millen said. “I was thinking it would fall off rather quickly. But there are certain doctors who really love it and certain patients who really love it. “I see it getting a little more mature. What’s happened in the last few months is that we’ve created more of a system for it that makes sense. On both sides, I think we all know when to hold it and when to fold it.” She laughed. “I mean, when to see them and when to video.” Source: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/story/2021-08-03/once-a-temporary-convenience-telehealth-is-here-to-stay < Previous News Next News >

RPM Programs Benefit Women's Health & Reduce Hospital Readmissions Center for Connected Health Policy April 27, 2021 Several remote patient monitoring (RPM) programs have found best practices and benefits related to utilization of this particular telehealth modality. In recent months several remote patient monitoring (RPM) programs have found best practices and benefits related to utilization of this particular telehealth modality. Tracking this data has become even more important moving forward, as policymakers evaluate the future of telehealth policy and push for more study around the quality of care provided via telehealth. For instance, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) has found that a unique remote patient monitoring (RPM) program launched in 2018 and tailored to women with hypertension is both feasible and effective. The program enrolls postpartum women at the time of hospital discharge and provides enrolled patients with a blood pressure monitoring cuff. Patients’ blood pressure data are collected and sent to UPMC providers and researchers for 6 weeks post-discharge. Early results show high compliance among women enrolled in the program and the ability for providers to identify the trajectory of hypertension and detect racial disparities between Black and White women. To learn more about the UPMC program, please visit this recent HealthcareITNews article or UPMC’s program website. Recently, two other RPM programs tailored to specific patient groups have shown the ability to reduce hospital readmission rates. According to a recent article in mHealth Intelligence, Deaconess Health in Indiana created a program for chronic care patients and those with COVID-19 that estimates a savings of $6.5 million in total costs of care through the program’s ability to cut the hospital’s 30-day readmission rate in half from 14% to under 7%. Meanwhile, according to surveys, over 90% of patients are satisfied with the program and care they get to receive at home. Baptist Health in Kentucky piloted a RPM program toward the end of 2019 for congestive heart failure (CHF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, pivoting their strategy to monitor COVID-19 patients at home as well, once hospitals began struggling with surges due to the pandemic. Using an integrated RPM platform, Baptist Health enrolled 270 COVID-19 patients from March to November 2020 and achieved zero hospital readmissions post-discharge. More details on the program are provided in this article from HealthcareITNews. Since the cost-effectiveness of telehealth remains a focus of policymakers as well, such studies show not only the potential benefits of telehealth for patient health outcomes, but health systems as a whole. HealthcareITNews article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/upmc-uses-rpm-study-postpartum-hypertension-among-black-and-white-women#:~:text=on%20Health%20Equity-,UPMC%20uses%20RPM%20to%20study%20postpartum%20hypertension%20among%20Black%20and,between%20women%20of%20both%20races. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC): https://www.upmc.com/media/news/091019-hauspurg-home-bp mHealth Intelligence: https://mhealthintelligence.com/ Baptist Health article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/remote-patient-monitoring-helps-baptist-health-achieve-zero-readmissions-covid-19-patients < Previous News Next News >

Medicare Telehealth: Actions Needed to Strengthen Oversight and Help Providers Educate Patients on Privacy and Security Risks U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) September 26, 2022 To help patients access care during the pandemic, Medicare temporarily waived restrictions on telehealth—health care services delivered via phone or video. The use of telehealth services rose tenfold: 53 million telehealth visits in Apr.-Dec. 2020 vs. 5 million during the same period in 2019. But Medicare hasn't comprehensively assessed the quality of care patients received, and lacks data on telehealth services delivered in patients' homes or via phone. Patients may also be unaware that their private health information could be overheard or inappropriately disclosed during their video appointment. Our recommendations address these issues. Highlights What GAO Found In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) temporarily waived certain Medicare restrictions on telehealth—the delivery of some services via audio-only or video technology. Use of telehealth services increased from about 5 million services pre-waiver (April to December 2019) to more than 53 million services post-waiver (April to December 2020). Total utilization of all Medicare services declined by about 14 percent post-waiver due to a 25 percent drop in in-person service use. GAO also found that, post-waiver, telehealth services increased across all provider specialties, and 5 percent of providers delivered over 40 percent of services. Urban providers delivered a greater percentage of their services via telehealth compared to rural providers; office visits and psychotherapy were the most common services. See full article: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104454 < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth 2.0: How Providence is taking its platform to the next level Laura Dyrda June 13, 2022 Telehealth became the prevailing mode for medical providers to see patients during the early days of the pandemic, and while use has leveled off in many areas, virtual care has become a permanent part of the healthcare ecosystem. Hospitals and health systems across the U.S. are now building telehealth, remote patient monitoring and hospital-at-home programs as part of their growth strategies. Patients also prefer telehealth as a convenient way to see their clinicians when an in-person visit isn't necessary. Most health systems have built a functioning telehealth program, but what opportunities are there to refine these programs for a better patient and clinician experience? Todd Czartoski, MD, chief medical technology officer at Renton, Wash.-based Providence, joined the Becker's "Digital Health + Health IT" podcast to talk about where the health system's virtual care program is headed. Click here to subscribe to the podcast and keep an eye out for Dr. Czartoski's episode. Note: Response below is edited lightly for clarity. Question: Where do you see telehealth becoming a better tool for clinicians and patients? How is virtual care at Providence evolving? Dr. Todd Czartoski: Over the last two years, our organization has done just over 4 million [telehealth] visits. For perspective, in 2019 we did 67,000 visits, and in one year we were doing 70,000 visits a week in April and May of 2020. That was a huge shift. Now, turning the lights on and being able to walk into the room is one thing, moving furniture around and optimizing the flow is another. A lot of our focus in the last couple years has been improving the experience for the provider, clinic staff and for the patient. We have really gotten it down to where the basic technical components of [telehealth] work pretty darn well, and we don't have a lot of issues with the connectivity piece. We've added interpreter services, and we've added in the ability to talk to more than one person at a time so you can have a family member in a different part of the country join the visit. Those types of things have been important add-ons, in addition to waiting room functionalities where you can add a survey or information tailored to the patient while they're waiting to see their provider in the virtual waiting room. Those are the things you're going to see continuing to evolve and emerge as additional capabilities. The support staff for the physician or provider's clinic also see their function and role evolving. If you think about a traditional clinic, a lot of those roles require putting patients in the room, checking their vitals, ordering labs or getting patients a follow-up appointment. Some of these things still exist, and some are going to be automated or done as part of a telehealth visit. That's where some of the opportunities are arising to continue to optimize the experience for the patients, staff and provider. You're going to see big trends overall here. Telehealth as a video visit, as a functionality, is somewhat limited. What we've learned is that whether you're a behavioral health specialist, a primary care provider or a subspecialty surgeon … all of those specialist visits can be done safely and effectively with telehealth. It's opened the door for looking at what else could we do beyond just a face-to-face visit. Specifically, the door has been opened for home monitoring. We have a remote patient monitoring solution that we built for COVID-19 home monitoring specifically, and because of the success of that, we've monitored over 30,000 patients up to two weeks who either confirmed or were under suspicion of having COVID-19. That opens the door for what we could do in terms of other types of home monitoring for COPD, diabetes, hypertension or whatever the case may be. That's a big area for growth and development. Finally, moving services outside the hospital, hospital-at-home, is a big initiative for us. We've been working on it for a long time and we're seeing some success. We're rapidly deploying that across our ecosystem and a lot of other health systems are as well. It really checks a lot of the boxes for patient experience; our patients absolutely love it. It's bending the cost curve, improving access and helping improve capacity so we don't have to build more super expensive towers and hospitals. Some of the outcomes with hospital-at-home have been shown to be better than traditional hospitalization when it comes to delirium, falls, length of stay and complications. People actually heal better on their own in a comfortable home environment. Those are a few examples of areas that we're going to see growth in our ecosystem. See original article: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/telehealth/telehealth-2-0-how-providence-is-taking-its-platform-to-the-next-level.html?origin=CIOE&utm_source=CIOE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=1372I2146745E8F < 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 >

Legislators Throughout the Southwest are Moving Towards Institutionalizing Telehealth Services Kirin Goff, Southwest Telehealth Resource Center July 2021 Legislatures across the southwest have sprung into action to enact bills that permanently expand telehealth services As the COVID-19 pandemic becomes increasingly under control and more states are ending their public health emergency declarations, legislatures across the southwest have sprung into action to enact bills that permanently expand telehealth services. At the forefront of this new legislation is Arizona’s HB 2454 that Governor Doug Ducey signed into law on March 5, 2021 to provide comprehensive amendments to the state's laws governing telehealth. In Arizona and other southwest states’ new telehealth laws, entities are generally prohibited from denying coverage for telehealth services and are required to cover remotely provided services at the same rate as equivalent in-person services. Exceptions to these requirements may be developed by an advisory committee of government officials, practitioners, and other stakeholders, who will determine, among other things, circumstances in which telehealth services are inappropriate. Even in the absence of a rule prohibiting telehealth services, healthcare providers must use good faith in determining whether telehealth services are appropriate, and if so, which communication modalities are appropriate. Communication Modalities Prior to the public health emergency response to the pandemic, audio-only services were generally permissible only if the healthcare provider had an existing relationship with the patient and audio-visual communication was not reasonably available. Voicemail was specifically excluded. Going forward, telehealth services in Arizona may be provided, when appropriate, through interactive audio/video, asynchronous store-and-forward technology (i.e., digitally stored medical imaging, multimedia files, other information that can be reviewed remotely), and remote patient monitoring technology. Legislation in other states throughout the southwest also includes measures that govern the types of communications by which telehealth services can be provided. In many cases, telehealth can be provided by means other than real-time, audio-visual communication. Nevada SB 5, for example, amends an existing definition of telehealth to include audio-only interactions. Utah's SB 161, which was enacted, allows providers to use HIPAA-compliant asynchronous audiovisual technology for certain treatments. Amendments to New Mexico's Cannabis Regulation Act (HB 2, also enacted) provide a patient to be diagnosed as a qualified patient via telemedicine, which includes store-and-forward and remote patient monitoring technologies as options. Collection and Reporting of Telehealth Data to Form Policy Decisions Legislators in Nevada, like those in Arizona, seek to collect and use data on telehealth services to aid in forming policy. Nevada SB 5 requires the state's Department of Health and Human Services to establish (if funding permits) a data dashboard allowing analysis of access to telehealth by different groups and populations. The bill goes further to include behavioral health boards, the Patient Protection Commission, and the Legislative Committee on Health Care to use the dashboard in formulating policy. Another Nevada bill (ACR 5) establishes a legislative committee to address the shortage of behavioral health professionals in the state. This committee will study the provision of behavioral health services through telehealth and consider ways to expand the use of telehealth to provide such services. Expansion of Services Various bills explicitly expand telehealth services in particular fields such as dentistry (Colorado SB 21-139, New Mexico SB 200), audiology and speech pathology (Colorado SB 21-021, New Mexico HB 210), occupational therapy (Colorado HB 21-1279), and dietetics and nutrition (New Mexico HB 147). Other measures are aimed at expanding broadband access:(Nevada AB 388; Colorado HB 21-1109), including efforts specifically directed at underserved communities (Arizona HB 2885, Nevada AB 388), seniors (Colorado SB 21-210, New Mexico SM 6), and children (New Mexico SM 15). In-Person Medical Examination Requirements In-person requirements have long been a contentious topic in the provision of initial telehealth services in certain contexts. For example, Arizona’s HB 2454 prohibits providers from prescribing Schedule II drugs after an audio-only communication with the patient, but generally allows other drugs to be prescribed after audio-only telehealth communications. In another context, Nevada’s SB 266 provides for in-person medical examinations for workers' compensation claims, but only if initial examinations were performed through telehealth services and only if a party requests an in-person examination. Interestingly, some bills seek to relax restrictions. For example, New Mexico’s HB 12 seeks to eliminate a previous requirement that a practitioner could only certify a patient for medical cannabis use if the practitioner had previously examined the patient in-person. Overall, the surge of bills moves us towards institutionalizing telehealth. Importantly, the latest round of legislation also exposes how much more there is to learn about optimizing telehealth and identifying best practices as uptake continues to increase across the southwest. New Mexico HB 147: https://track.govhawk.com/public/bills/1414538 New Mexico SM 6: https://track.govhawk.com/public/bills/1425880 New Mexico SM 15: https://track.govhawk.com/public/bills/1443803 New Mexico’s HB 12: https://track.govhawk.com/public/bills/1428580 Source: https://southwesttrc.org/blog/2021/legislators-throughout-southwest-are-moving-towards-institutionalizing-telehealth < Previous News Next News >

Packard Foundation COVID-19 Policy Flexibilities Report – Impacts and Recommendations Related to Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs Center for Connected Health Policy July 2021 Telehealth ensured better access to distant and specialized services, especially for those in rural areas and needing services in nearby states, as well as the potential to reduce disparities and address workforce shortages, such as those related to pediatric specialists. Last month the Lucile Packard Foundation released a report on COVID-19 policy flexibilities that focused on impacts and recommendations related to children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN). In addition to analyzing emergency policies, they looked to clinicians, family advocates, and other stakeholders to identify both challenges and opportunities based on their experiences. The number one policy change highlighted by all interviewees was how greater use of telehealth expanded access to care and had significant advantages, particularly for CYSHCN and their families. Telehealth ensured better access to distant and specialized services, especially for those in rural areas and needing services in nearby states, as well as the potential to reduce disparities and address workforce shortages, such as those related to pediatric specialists. Stakeholders also spoke to how telehealth addresses transportation and logistical barriers, mitigating challenges such as traveling long distances, missing work, and bringing other family members along as well as cumbersome medical equipment. The report also noted that the greatest challenges were identified as systemic infrastructure issues affecting broadband access, digital literacy, and lack of interpretation services. Based on their analysis and interviews, the report recommended CMS and state Medicaid programs extend emergency flexibilities on payment parity, audio-only and synchronous reimbursement, as well as remove geographic or rural/urban site restrictions and ease cross-state licensing laws. They also suggested the use of targeted federal funding to reduce disparities and providing grants for telehealth infrastructure and training, as well as increasing flexibility of privacy rules. For state Medicaid programs in particular, they recommended piloting additional modalities for future use such as texting, expanding school-based reimbursement and guidance, and considering reimbursement in childcare settings. The authors heard universally from stakeholders that reimbursement and payment parity requirements were essential to the availability of telehealth. According to their review, 38 states plus DC provided Medicaid payment parity by the end of April 2020, and by September, 17 states enacted laws requiring payment parity from private insurers. In addition, some clinicians reported that telehealth reduced emergency room and inpatient utilization, but because the costs saved were not shared with hospitals, the hospital shut down the program and they are now seeing increased emergency room use and negative health outcomes. For more information, please access the full report at https://www.lpfch.org/sites/default/files/field/publications/covid-19-hma-report_1.pdf. < Previous News Next News >

What you need to know about standing up a virtual nursing unit Bill Siwicki February 15, 2022 Jennifer Ball, RN, director of virtual care at Saint Luke's Health System of Kansas City, describes the workings and many benefits of the telehealth approach. The U.S. nursing shortage has reached critical levels during the pandemic battle, paired with an aging population. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects the need for 1.1 million new RNs for expansion and replacement of retirees. To serve its inpatient population and overcome the nursing shortage, St. Luke's Health System of Kansas City has developed an innovative approach leveraging virtual care. The organization created and implemented one of the nation's first virtual nursing units to reduce the burden on bedside nurses and much more. In her HIMSS22 educational session entitled "Lessons Learned from Launching a Virtual Nursing Unit," Jennifer Ball, RN, director of virtual care at Saint Luke's Health System of Kansas City will offer attendees next month a deep dive into the workings of the virtual nursing unit. She has been a nurse for 35 years, with a clinical background in ICU, trauma and ED, and has 25 years of experience in nursing management. To read the full article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/what-you-need-know-about-standing-virtual-nursing-unit < Previous News Next News >

The Data Challenge to Prove Telehealth’s Importance Continues Jan Ground, PT, MBA November 17, 2022 A group of telehealth leaders from 18 states worked the past two years on proving the value of telehealth with data to convince payors and legislators that continuing reimbursement post-COVID 19 is the right thing to do. Over the course of two years, 40 people, including five physicians, four nurses, four other clinicians, and 27 telehealth leaders in provider organizations, contributed to the effort. The group chose to focus initially on video visits for those in need of mental health care. We succeeded in step one: we surveyed 16 mental health provider organizations to find out what data they were collecting, and how success was being measured in 2020. The organizations ranged from large university medical centers to private practices in nine states. Not surprisingly, the data and metrics varied widely, even across large university-based systems. For example, in response to the question “What, if anything, is being measured regarding clinical outcomes?” Four organizations reported no clinical outcomes measurements Four organizations used a wide variety of validated and commonly used clinical outcome metrics: PHQ-9 (used by 3 of 4 ) Patient Health Questionnaire (columbia.edu) GAD7 (used by 2 of 4) GAD-7 (General Anxiety Disorder-7) - MDCalc BASIS-24 (use) BASIS-24® — eBASIS ACES ACE.pdf (odmhsas.org) Adverse Childhood Experiences Study EDE-Q PDFfiller - ede q online(1).pdf (uslegalforms.com) Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire OCI-R Obsessive Compulsive Inventory - Revised (OCI-R) (psychology-tools.com) SF-12 The SF-12v2 PRO Health Survey (qualitymetric.com) Short Form Health Survey BAI beck-anxiety-inventory.pdf (jolietcenter.com) EDE-Q ede-q_quesionnaire.pdf (corc.uk.net) Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire EDY-Q Microsoft Word - Hilbert, van Dyck_EDY-Q_English Version_2016 (harvard.edu) Eating Disorders in Youth Questionnaire McMaster Family Assessment Device STAI-C-S State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAI-CH) - Assessments, Tests | Mind Garden - Mind Garden State Trait Anxiety Inventory – Child Version – State only DERS Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) (novopsych.com.au) PCL-5 PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) - Fillable Form (va.gov) Post-traumatic Checklist In another question on cost savings, the survey question was “What, if anything, is being measured regarding cost savings?” 13 organizations reported no cost savings measurements Two of the three organizations reported savings measurements shared the following metrics (video visits vs in person visits) Handouts, parking vouchers, meal vouchers In person clinicians paid salary, video visit clinicians paid per hour, Future: space cost savings (video visit clinicians providing care from home) In our next effort we wanted to add payor leaders or legislators to join the conversation to determine which, if any of the metrics being used and data being collected, might convince them to support continued reimbursement post-COVID 19. The 40 participants were all associated with provider organizations with insufficient connections with payors/legislators to successfully bring them into the conversation. The group took a break and then decided on a new approach. We came up with what we THINK would be most important to payors/legislators, based on our understanding of what drives their success. Here’s the list: Compare the following data for specific groups of mental health patients (e.g., based on location, disorder, gender, age, first time vs return patients, newly diagnosed vs existing patient, prior telemedicine use, other relevant demographics, and characteristics), with or without access to care by video: number of ED visits number of hospitalizations suicide rates survey results that measure mental health status using validated tools (e.g., PHQ9) timing to access -(i.e., length of time to get patients in front of provider for first visit) provider and patient satisfaction and retention (i.e., remain in care) Interestingly, I have since learned that, in fact, there are many data sources on these topics with many peer-reviewed articles based on well-controlled studies. That leads me to a different question: Why were none of the 40 participants, including me, aware of these data sources and how to access them? It perhaps has its roots in the type of data available. Much of the data available comes from academic institutions reporting on research studies and publishing in peer-reviewed journals. These can be readily found through a PubMed or Google Scholar search using appropriate search terms (e.g., telemental health, outcomes, cost) but if one is unfamiliar with conducting this type of search these articles will not be available to review. Other sources of information include websites of the professional societies of which the providers are members (e.g., American Psychiatric Association) and government websites (e.g., Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, but one has to know about these before they can be searched. Finally is the fact that although many healthcare systems and funders collect data, they use these data for internal purposes only and simply do not publish or share them. We are currently in search of a few provider organizations interested in/willing to collect some of these data. We have not had success. If you are interested in joining this collaborative effort, please contact me at: janground@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jan-ground-3089742/ A new thought is to focus on a current hot topic in the US, such as COVID 19, to identify data to prove (or not!) the value of care by video. Perhaps we could find an organization willing to provide some funding to more likely successfully identify organizations willing to collect the data. It should not have to be this hard! About the Author Jan Ground PT, MBA, led innovation and virtual care at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, where she worked for 18 years. She is the Colorado Liaison to the Southwest Telehealth Resource Center and the Colorado Ambassador to Telehealth and Medicine Today, an online peer-reviewed journal. Active in the American Telemedicine Association, Jan leads a group looking to prove, with data, that telehealth is worth paying for. Jan’s expertise is in leading change, and in clearly defining a problem before implementing a new approach to care. Her greatest passion is to lower the cost of the American healthcare system without lowering clinical outcomes. See original article: https://southwesttrc.org/blog/2022/data-challenge-prove-telehealth-s-importance-continues < Previous News Next News >

CCHP Leadership Provides A Look Back at Telehealth Policy in 2022: Yes...The Year is Almost Over! Mei Kwong December 20, 2022 As another full year of living under the public health emergency (PHE) for COVID-19 comes to an end, we are taking a look back to see what has happened this year with telehealth policy on both the federal and state level. Since the PHE is still in place and likely to continue into 2023, permanent changes on the federal level have been fewer in comparison to what many states have been doing. In fact, some states began making permanent telehealth policy changes as early as late 2020. Other states have taken similar actions to their federal counterparts and put a definitive future expiration date on temporary telehealth policies. FEDERAL The most significant federal legislative telehealth policy action seen this year took place in the Budget Act of 2022 which included language extending some of the temporary waivers to telehealth in Medicare for an additional 151 days after the PHE. This statutory change led to additional clarifications that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made in their Physician Fee Schedule for 2023 (PFS). CCHP also recently released a fact sheet on the relevant telehealth policies. The final result as the policy stands now is: For 151 Days After the PHE: Certain providers including federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), Rural Health Clinics (RHCs), occupational therapists, and physical therapists may continue to provide eligible services via telehealth under the Medicare program. The list of temporary services eligible to be delivered via telehealth and covered by the Medicare program will continue to be available during this 151-day period. The geographic limitations under permanent telehealth Medicare policy will be suspended during this 151-day period and the home will continue to be an eligible originating site for all eligible services during the extension. Audio-only can continue to be used as a modality for eligible services during the 151-day extension. Permanent policy requirements such as a previous in-person visit for mental health services taking place in a non-geographically eligible location, in the home or via audio-only is suspended during this 151-day period. Certain other federal waivers that exist under the PHE are currently not included in this 151-day grace period. This includes the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) exercising discretion in enforcing HIPAA which OCR has noted will expire when the PHE is declared over or expires, whichever comes first. As can be seen by the foregoing, very little has changed this year regarding permanent policy, just what will happen in the immediate aftermath of the end of the PHE. There have been some indications that Congress may pass legislation to extend the federal waivers, or at least some of them, beyond the 151-day period. HR 4040 authored by Representative Liz Cheney (R, WY) passed the House earlier this year, but no further action was taken. That bill would have extended some of the temporary waivers for an additional two years. However, what might be considered by Congress now is rumored to be only a one-year extension. It remains to be seen if some additional action will be taken legislatively. Feeding into the federal policymakers’ decision-making process have been several reports from various federal agencies in the past year. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released several reports around telehealth in 2022 including: Telehealth Was Critical for Providing Services to Medicare Beneficiaries During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic Certain Medicare Beneficiaries, Such as Urban and Hispanic Beneficiaries, Were More Likely Than Others to Use Telehealth During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic Medicare Telehealth Services During the First Year of the Pandemic: Program Integrity Risks The last study listed above is important to take note of given the concerns raised by policymakers for the potential of abuse and fraud. However, the OIG report noted that in the first year of COVID-19, less than 1% of telehealth claims made to Medicare raised flags for potential fraud, which should provide some reassurance to policymakers. Broadband has been an issue both on federal and state policymakers’ minds. While connectivity is a greater issue beyond how it impacts telehealth, it cannot be denied that telehealth will simply not work if the patient and provider cannot connect, although policy expansions related to audio-only have sought to mitigate this gap to a certain extent. In 2022, the Federal Communications Commission transitioned the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program into the Affordable Connectivity Program which provides assistance in paying for connectivity. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) compiled federal funding opportunities that support broadband planning, digital inclusion and deployment projects on one site. States have also been gearing up activity around broadband, some of it funded by the federal government such as NTIA awards to Nebraska to develop strategic plans to expand high-speed broadband and other investments made by the state itself. No doubt, broadband will continue to be a significant issue in 2023. STATES As CCHP’s recent Legislative Roundup newsletter noted, 2022 was another active year for state telehealth policy legislation, though not as robust as it was in 2021. Overall, in 2022, of the bills enacted and subjects CCHP tracked, licensure proved to be the most popular policy issue addressed with 61 bills across the states passing. This was followed by 27 enacted bills related to professional regulations and telehealth, many having to do with prescribing and 18 bills for pilot/studies/demonstrations. Enacted Medicaid and private payer reimbursement bills were 17 and 12, respectively. The licensure focus is of particular interest to note. While many of the pieces of legislation passed related to joining licensure compacts, states also made exceptions to licensure for specific situations. States are starting to address the various situations usually involving an already established relationship between patients and providers that prior to the pandemic had remained grey areas. A common concern raised during the pandemic related to licensure involved a patient temporarily re-locating to another state, perhaps as a college student, going on vacation or caring for a family member, but still wanting to receive services from their own provider in their home state. Kentucky passed HB 188 that forbids a regulatory board from promulgating regulations related to telehealth that prohibit “the delivery of telehealth services to a person who is not a permanent resident of Kentucky who is temporarily located in Kentucky by a provider who is credentialed by a professional licensure board in the person’s state of permanent residence.” While clarity is always welcomed, the exceptions individual states are passing will create more complexity in the telehealth policy landscape particularly for practitioners who provide services in multiple jurisdictions. Reimbursement is an area that generates significant interest. For Medicaid related legislation, the type of modality used and services that would be covered under the program were popular issues addressed through legislation. For example, Virginia SB 426 requires the Medicaid state plan be amended to allow for remote patient monitoring (RPM) services for patients with certain types of medical conditions such as high-risk pregnancy and transplant patients when there is evidence that use of RPM is likely to prevent readmission to a hospital. Private payer telehealth legislation can also be quite specific. Louisiana HB 304 now requires telehealth coverage and payment parity equivalent to in-person services for physical therapy in particular. However, what we also saw were legislators moving towards ensuring there were patient protections/choice codified in state laws related to private payer plans and telehealth. Mississippi SB 2738, among other things, states that insurers cannot limit coverage of services to select third-party organizations. Commercial plans only offering telehealth delivered services to enrollees through a third party and not allowing their in-network providers to use telehealth has been a concern that was growing even prior to the pandemic. This stems from concerns raised by policymakers regarding patient choice or patients being “forced” to use telehealth and continuity of care concerns that continue to exist today. Overall, the number of states expanding telehealth policies increased. As noted in CCHP’s latest update to its 50 State Telehealth Policy Summary Report, Fall 2022, compared to its Fall 2021 update, three more state Medicaid programs are covering store-and-forward telehealth, five more states are covering RPM under Medicaid, and state Medicaid programs covering audio-only went up from 22 states to 34 states and DC. Additionally, three states have added payment parity requirements to their private payer laws. WHAT’S NEXT FOR 2023? As noted above, rumors have swirled around that there may be movement on the federal level to extend some of the telehealth waivers beyond the 151-day grace period, similar to what was proposed in the Cheney bill. However, it is likely that any such change will be included in a larger bill, such as the budget bill, rather than a standalone telehealth bill. There are also several outstanding issues that continue to not be addressed such as the registry for telehealth that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was to finalize regulations for in 2019. Some may recall that among the list of exceptions to allowing telehealth to be used to prescribe a controlled substance without the telehealth provider having examined the patient in-person included when a PHE was declared and the creation of a registry. For the registry, presumably once a provider is qualified to be on the registry, they need not have to meet any of the other narrow exceptions to prescribe via telehealth. That registry has never been created, though Congress had directed the DEA to finalize regulations by the end of 2019. On the state level, we likely can expect to see continued action around coverage, licensure, and professional regulations, as well as continued discussion around patient choice. During this past year, there has been increased discussions regarding “telehealth-first” health plans and the impact on patient choice. Whether policymakers take a more active role in regulating these plans remains to be seen, but the discussion around patient choice protections will continue. One thing is clear: the telehealth policy landscape is by no means “settled” as 2022 draws to a close. Outstanding questions around temporary policies still remain and even settled policies implemented a year or so ago have been tweaked in some states. To hear more about what's occurred in 2022, plus what we can anticipate for 2023, watch CCHP's newest short video. As we head into 2023 we can be certain that the telehealth policy landscape will continue to evolve and change, and we look forward to having you continue on this journey alongside CCHP. Have a Happy New Year and see everyone in 2023! Mei Kwong, CCHP Executive Director See original article: https://mailchi.mp/cchpca/cchp-leadership-provides-a-look-back-at-telehealth-policy-in-2022-yesthe-year-is-almost-over < Previous News Next News >

Emergency telemedicine poised to grow in pandemic’s new phase Tanya Albert Henry, Contributing News Writer May 23, 2022 Emergency medicine is likely not the first specialty that comes to mind when thinking about the clinical areas that can benefit greatly from telehealth. But this digitally enabled mode of health care delivery that took off at the pandemic’s onset was helping in the emergency medicine setting before COVID-19 and will only continue to grow. An AMA Telehealth Immersion Program event co-hosted with the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) provided an overview of the innovative ways telemedicine is being used in emergency settings and discussed how telehealth can continue to help physicians provide better care for patients. 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, said Aditi U. Joshi, MD, chair of ACEP’s telehealth section. That includes the kind of asynchronous care that can be part of telehealth. Triage involves determining which kind of care presenting patients require. “Can they stay at home, do they need to go to an urgent care, primary care, or do they need to come into the emergency department?” she said. “We are uniquely skilled in that.” Telestroke was another form of telehealth in use before the COVID-19 pandemic, and telehealth was in use at freestanding emergency departments and urgent care centers. And here are a few ways that virtual care is poised to continue to grow: Triage. This can include, for example, talking to the emergency medical services unit on the way to the hospital, long-term acute care (LTAC) triage, and telemedicine screening exams. Direct, acute unscheduled care. For example, virtual urgent care, ED consults to help with things such as transfer stabilization treatment advice, LTAC, correctional medicine, or skilled nursing facility consults. Virtual (out of ED) observation. For example, post-ED follow-up visits, remote home monitoring, and hospital at home. The AMA helps guide physicians, practices and health systems in optimizing and sustaining telehealth at their organizations through the AMA Telehealth Immersion Program. The program builds on The Telehealth Initiative and is part of the AMA STEPS Forward® Innovation Academy, which enables physicians to learn from peers and experts and discover ways to implement time-saving practice innovation strategies. Benefits in the rural setting Over the past decade, 120 U.S. hospitals closed and 31 states have seen at least one rural hospital among those closures. With 20% of the population living and working in a rural area where hospitals often have limited staff, wait times for EDs in the rural hospitals are higher than the national average that is already at 24 minutes—and that is to see a nonphysician such as a nurse practitioner or physician assistant. It’s not uncommon for a physician to have to be called to come in from home at night because there are not enough doctors to staff the hospital 24/7. Emergency physician Kelly Rhone, MD, interim chief medical officer and vice president of innovation and outreach at Avel eCare, said their virtual health system—started in 1993—works with rural hospitals across the country to provide emergency care. They are hard-wired into EDs where health professionals with the push of a button can connect to their virtual emergency department, staffed with emergency physicians and nurses, to direct those who have their hands on the patients who may be in cardiac arrest, suffering from a stroke or facing other life-threatening injuries. “We are making a difference in rural health and bringing cutting-edge emergency medicine to the bedside,” Dr. Rhone said. Emergency telehealth in big cities too Telemedicine in the ED setting has benefits in large urban areas such as Los Angeles, too. Moshen Saidinejad, MD, directs pediatric emergency medicine at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, and said many children go to EDs that aren’t set up for pediatric patients and telemedicine allows those trained in pediatric emergency medicine to consult with those treating a child. The benefits of expanded telemedicine are clear. Join physicians who are advocating to permanently expand virtual care coverage. For more information see full article: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital/emergency-telemedicine-poised-grow-pandemic-s-new-phase?smclient=f760e669-8538-11ec-83c8-18cf24ce389f&utm_source=salesmanago&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=default < Previous News Next News >

Advances in telemedicine are on the way in 2022 Bill Siwicki Dec. 20, 2021 A physician expert in virtual care talks technological advances, reimbursement legislation and the continued evolution of remote patient monitoring. 2020 and 2021 saw the mainstreaming of telehealth and the rise of remote patient monitoring. These changes to the healthcare landscape were helped partly by requirements of the COVID-19 pandemic and partly by the subsequent loosening of telemedicine reimbursement and licensure regulations by the government. But what's to happen in 2022? Will the government and commercial payers continue to reimburse for telemedicine? Will new virtual-care legislation pass? Will there be technological advances that push the care paradigm further forward? And what of the future of remote patient monitoring? Healthcare IT News sat down with Dr. Ian Tong, chief medical officer at Included Health, a telehealth technology and services company, to get his read on these questions and his predictions for telehealth in 2022 and beyond. Q. What do you see in the realm of technological advances in telemedicine in 2022? A. While 2021 saw many healthcare technology mergers and acquisitions in response to the pandemic, and growing virtual-care adoption among payers, providers and consumers, much of the technology of these combined entities remains fractured. Though promoted as one offering, consumers still are having to navigate two or more platforms and work to connect the dots themselves. The technology needs to become invisible – so good that you don't even realize it's there. The technology for virtual-care appointments also will continue to advance beyond 1:1 doctor-patient video conferencing. For example, in response to the rising behavioral health provider shortage, we can expect to see technology that can enable group sessions with multiple patients receiving counsel and support at once. Whether it's behavioral, acute or chronic care, the most important role that technology will play is enabling all physicians to have the same window into a patient's medical history and care plan so they can provide integrated, longitudinal care. The technology is what will enable this industry to realize the full potential of virtual care beyond transactional, one-time interactions. Q. All the temporary reimbursement moves by government and payers for the sake of the pandemic really pushed telehealth into the mainstream. What do you foresee happening with reimbursement for virtual care in 2022? Will it become permanent? Will it be expanded? A. With usage rates 38 times higher than pre-pandemic, and the inarguable value for the people who need it most – seniors and the immunocompromised who can't afford in-person exposure – I believe the government will and should expand virtual-care access. Pre-pandemic virtual care was used for urgent, low-complexity issues – cough, cold, rashes. But today, the real value is for integrated chronic-disease management or ongoing behavioral-health therapy, where people need not be burdened by the constant travel in and out of doctors' offices. The more care that shifts to virtual, the less burden of disease the patients will have, which will lead to better outcomes. This is an opportunity that should be afforded to everyone, especially our most vulnerable and historically underserved communities. Q. Remote patient monitoring is a form of telehealth that is of growing interest to healthcare provider organizations. What do you see happening with RPM in 2022? A. Adoption of remote patient monitoring devices continues to rise, and we don't see it slowing down any time soon. Today, one third of consumers are more likely to choose a provider that allows them to share data from a connected health device, which only promotes more positive outcomes. The more real-time data that we can collect in the comfort of people's homes, the more personalized, data-driven virtual care we can provide. However, to really launch adoption in this sector, the costs of these devices need to come down. As costs come down, health plans can more easily find an ROI [return on investment] to subsidize the use of these devices. https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/advances-telemedicine-are-way-2022 < Previous News Next News >

How Amazon, Walmart & 7 Others are Expanding Their Telehealth Business Katie Adams, Becker's Hospital Review July 2021 Companies are remaining active in their efforts to grow their telehealth businesses. It's unclear how widely telehealth services will be used once the pandemic subsides, but companies are remaining active in their efforts to grow their telehealth businesses. Below are updates on how nine companies are expanding their telehealth business, as covered by Becker's Hospital Review during the past three months. UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum on April 15 deployed a new telehealth product across all 50 states. The product, dubbed Optum Virtual Care, aims to integrate physical care, virtual care, home care and behavioral care. Amwell on April 28 unveiled its new Converge telehealth platform, which can host and operate digital offerings from Cleveland Clinic, Google Cloud and others. Ro, a direct-to-consumer telehealth app for pharmacy services, inked its first retail collaboration with Walmart April 28. Under the new partnership, Ro will launch its Roman health and wellness products and digital services in more than 4,600 Walmart stores across the country. On May 19, Ro acquired reproductive health company Modern Fertility for more than $225 million. Amazon on May 5 signed its first enterprise client for its telehealth service, Amazon Care. It has since secured multiple companies as clients for the telehealth service, and it is eyeing expansion into rural markets. Walmart Health on May 6 entered an agreement to acquire on-demand, multispecialty telehealth provider MeMD. By acquiring MeMD, Walmart will begin providing virtual care services for urgent, behavioral and primary care to complement its in-person Walmart Health Centers. Telehealth provider Doctor On Demand and clinical navigation platform Grand Rounds completed their merger May 11. On May 26, the combined company signed a definitive agreement to acquire Included Health, a comprehensive healthcare platform for patients who are LGBTQ and BIPOC. Teladoc Health on May 11 launched its new mental healthcare service MyStrength Complete, which offers personalized mental health services to consumers as an integration of Teladoc's virtual platform. On July 14, Teladoc integrated its hospital telehealth platform with Microsoft Teams. The Clinic, a joint digital health venture between Cleveland Clinic and Amwell, on May 18 launched new health offerings as part of its virtual second opinion service. The offering expansion is for patients with brain tumors and prostate cancers, since there are multiple treatment options for these conditions. Membership-based primary care network One Medical on June 7 entered an agreement to acquire Iora Health, a tech-powered primary care provider focusing on serving Medicare patients. The acquisition will allow One Medical to offer 24/7 digital and in-person care, as well as extend the provider into full-risk Medicare reimbursement models. < 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 >

House reps advocate for audio-only telehealth extensions for opioid treatments Jeff Lagasse October 21, 2022 The lawmakers describe the future of audio-only telehealth coverage as "unpredictable" and say a consistent policy should be established. Two Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives have penned a letter to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Drug Enforcement Agency, imploring the agencies to extend flexibilities for audio-based telehealth so physicians may continue prescribing medication-assisted treatments to address opioid use disorder. Representatives Ann McLane Kuster, D-N.H., and Lori Trahan, D-Mass., said they're advocates for the development of a long-term policy regarding telehealth flexibilities, particularly, when it comes to administering buprenorphine to patients, a medication that helps prevent overdose death. They cited research from the National Library of Medicine suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic introduced increased barriers to accessing treatment for those with opioid use disorder. Drug overdoses are increasing and disparities have been worsening over the last several years, with opioid-related overdose deaths reaching an all-time high in 2021. Kuster and Trahan noted that the Physician Fee Schedule proposed rule regarding coverage of audio-only telehealth for buprenorphine initiation depends on if "buprenorphine is authorized by the DEA and SAMHSA at the time the service is furnished." Since payment for services is dependent on Drug Enforcement Agency and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration guidance, the House members encouraged the agencies to release the public guidance quickly, and to include policies, such as telehealth, that increase access to OUD treatment. WHAT'S THE IMPACT? Audio-only telehealth is an important tool for clinicians in responding to the addiction crisis, the lawmakers said. A 2021 study from the National Library of Medicine backs this up, finding that audio-only telehealth, as a "low-threshold" approach to medication-assisted treatment, was associated with better retention in care. Previous studies also show that providers treating patients with OUD think that telemedicine, including audio-only options, should be offered in some form beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, regulations permitting. The American Society for Addiction Medicine recently released their policy statement on telehealth, saying it's a viable tool to increase access to buprenorphine as part of OUD treatment "and that there is ample opportunity moving forward to study the role that audio-only care can play in responding to the opioid crisis," the lawmakers wrote. Calling the future of audio-only telehealth coverage "unpredictable," the representatives requested that SAMHSA and the DEA grant telehealth flexibilities along with the declaration of a public health emergency for the opioid crisis; evaluate long-term policy for flexibilities based on the utilization and effectiveness of audio-only telehealth in relation to medication-assisted treatment; and detail a projected timeline regarding rulemaking for audio-only telecommunications for the initiation of buprenorphine for treatment of OUD. THE LARGER TREND Overdose deaths were rising prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but in 2020, there was a significant increase in overdose deaths. According to provisional CDC data, overdose deaths increased more than 30% in 2020, leading to more than 93,000 deaths. This increase was driven by the use of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and stimulants, such as methamphetamine and cocaine, or combinations of substances. Pandemic restrictions intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have unfortunately also made it harder for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) to receive treatment and support services. Providing funding for harm-reduction services is one pillar of a four-pillar approach being implemented at the federal level. Evidence-based harm-reduction strategies minimize the negative consequences of drug use, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The other three pillars of the administration's opioid mitigation strategy are primary prevention, focusing on the root causes and predictors of SUDs, evidence-based treatment and recovery support. A December 2021 report from the Office of the Inspector General found that while more than 1 million Medicare beneficiaries had a diagnosis of OUD in 2020, less than 16% of those beneficiaries received medication to treat their conditions. They accounted for fewer than 1 in 6 of all Medicare beneficiaries with OUD. Twitter: @JELagasse Email the writer: jeff.lagasse@himssmedia.com See original article: https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/house-reps-advocate-audio-only-telehealth-extensions-opioid-treatments < Previous News Next News >

HHS to put $35M toward telehealth for family planning Kat Jercich November 29, 2021 The agency plans to use the funds to award about 60 one-time grants to Title X family planning providers, who must apply by February of next year. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would make $35 million in American Rescue Plan funding available for Title X family planning providers to strengthen their telehealth infrastructure and capacity. Title X family planning clinics help to insure access to a broad range of reproductive health services for low-income or uninsured individuals. "I’ve seen first-hand the critical role that telehealth plays in serving communities, particularly to protect so many families from COVID-19," said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement about the grant availability. "As providers transitioned from providing in-person primary care to offering telehealth services, we were able to test, vaccinate, and act as lifelines to communities disproportionately hit by the pandemic," he said. "Increasing our investment and access to telehealth services remains critical." WHY IT MATTERS The Office of Population Affairs funds 71 Title X family planning service grantees and supports hundreds of subrecipients and thousands of service sites around the country. Family planning includes a broad range of services related to reproductive health, including contraception, sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy testing. Although abortion care can be co-located with family planning services, Title X funds cannot be used to pay for it. Although some services require in-person treatment and exams, others can be carried out via telehealth – as evidenced by grantees' use of virtual care to help their patients during the COVID-19 crisis. Still, facilities may not have adequate technology available. "During the global COVID-19 pandemic, family planning programs have accelerated the use of telehealth," said Dr. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health, in a statement. "These ARP funds will facilitate the delivery of quality family planning services and reduce access barriers for people living in America who rely on the health care safety net for services," she added. HHS plans to use the funds to award about 60 one-time grants to active Title X grantees. Organizations must apply by February 3, 2022, and notices of awards will be announced before the project start date of May 1, 2022. THE LARGER TREND Even as the government has moved to shore up telehealth infrastructure via funding, the question of virtual care's future continues to hang over Congress. Despite requests from hundreds of advocacy organizations, legislators have so far failed to take action to permanently safeguard telehealth after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency – what some activists have referred to as "the telehealth cliff." "We recognize there are many unknowns related to the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic over the next 12 to 24 months," said American Telemedicine Association CEO Ann Mond Johnson in October. "However, we implore Secretary Becerra to provide as much predictability and certainty as possible to ensure adequate warning before patients are pushed over this looming cliff." ON THE RECORD "The pandemic has laid bare the important role that telehealth can play in our nation’s healthcare service delivery, and we are profoundly grateful for the opportunity to support continued investments in telehealth for the nation’s family planning safety net," said Jessica Swafford Marcella, HHS deputy assistant secretary for population affairs, in a statement. < Previous News Next News >

Congress’ Last Minute Holiday Gift to Telehealth: The Omnibus Budget for FY 2023 Has Passed! CCHP December 23, 2022 Earlier today, Congress passed HR 2617, The Performance Enhancement Reform Act, the omnibus budget for FY 2023. HR 2617 includes several provisions impacting telehealth, including extending some of the telehealth COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities. In the budget bill passed for FY 2022, Congress had included a 151-day extension after the end of the public health emergency (PHE) for some COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities. However, with the passage of HR 2617, these flexibilities will now last until December 31, 2024. The main telehealth provisions in the bill include: For Medicare: Some telehealth flexibilities in Medicare are extended to December 31, 2024. These flexibilities include: temporary suspension of the geographic site requirement, continuing to allow the home as an eligible originating site, allowing certain providers, including FQHCs and RHCs to continue to be eligible telehealth providers during this period, delaying the in-person mental health visit requirement for services that take place when the patient is not in a geographically eligible location or at home that is found in non-pandemic telehealth policies, and continuing to allow audio-only to be used to provide some services. A study on telehealth and Medicare program integrity that will include a medical record review of claims from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024. Elements to be examined include the types of services furnished, where they were furnished, and duration of services. For the VA: Development of a strategic plan to ensure effectiveness of telehealth delivered by the VA to their enrollees. Other Items: Extension of safe harbor for absence of deductible for telehealth in health savings accounts for another 2 years (for plans after December 31, 2022 and before January 1, 2025). President Biden is expected to sign the bill which will allow telehealth providers and patients to have a little more clarity on the end date of federal telehealth provisions. For more information read HR 2617 in its entirety. Wishing a wonderful holiday season and a happy new year to all! See original article: https://mailchi.mp/cchpca/congress-last-minute-holiday-gift-to-telehealth-the-omnibus-budget-for-fy-2023-has-passed < Previous News Next News >