Can virtual nursing help ease clinician burnout? Bill Siwicki November 14, 2022 The turnover rate for nurses stands at 27%. Can telemedicine save the day? No hospital or health system is immune from the challenges of the nationwide nursing shortage. As organizations look for ways to reduce the administrative burden on nurses and improve engagement and satisfaction, virtual nursing is one consideration. Many tasks performed by nurses in the inpatient setting are repetitive – a virtual nursing unit allows nurses to manage these tasks remotely. Bedside nurses and staff then are freed up to focus on patient-facing care, while those in the virtual unit can monitor patients, enter data in the medical record and more. To better understand the ins and outs of virtual nursing, we interviewed Dr. Shayan Vyas, senior vice president and medical director for hospitals and health systems at Teladoc Health. Q. What is the national nursing shortage like today? How does it play out in hospitals and health systems? A. Every health system I've spoken with, that we work with, says workforce challenges are among the top three issues keeping them up at night. This is particularly true for nursing staff. In 2021, nurses were leaving the profession at an alarming rate. According to NSI Nursing Solutions, the turnover rate for nurses increased by 8.4% in 2021 and currently stands at 27%. An increase in patient volume and occupancy rates, among other factors, have led to severe emotional and physical exhaustion and, ultimately, job dissatisfaction and burnout. A 2021 McKinsey survey found that 32% of nurses were likely to leave their current position due to insufficient staffing levels, a lack of support and the emotional toll of the job. President Obama once said that "nurses are the heartbeat of the United States healthcare system," and I really believe that to be true. They put their lives on the line to serve and care for others every single day, and we need to give them the tools to more effectively, efficiently and safely care for others and save lives. Virtual care offers new strategies to address these challenges; virtual nursing is an important component that health systems can include in their transformation and care delivery redesign initiatives. Q. What is virtual nursing, and how does it work? A. Virtual nursing, simply put, is the delivery of nursing care and services from a remote location. Virtual nurses are responsible for monitoring multiple patients while collaborating with the nurses, physicians, therapists and other staff who provide care at the patient's bedside. The virtual nursing unit can be centralized (for example, nurses work from a command center in a healthcare facility), distributed (nurses work from home or other remote locations) or hybrid. Adopting virtual nursing provides a way to mitigate potential staffing losses due to short-term injury or other conditions that require nurses to be off their feet. It is also a way to extend nurses' careers, for example, by offering nurses with developing or chronic physical limitations the option of working seated in a command center, instead of providing physically challenging care on a nursing unit. Virtual nursing programs also can help attract nurses by providing different options for shifts and work styles. This model supports organizations by enabling them to have virtual nurses work from anywhere – allowing them to provide much-needed care and services without requiring nurses to relocate so that they live close enough to a hospital to be able to go on-site for their shift. It also helps new nurses with clinical support, medication verifications and overall non-physical patient bedside care assistance. Health systems that have created virtual nursing programs to augment their bedside nurses have found virtual nursing can extend nurses' careers and improve job satisfaction for floor nurses by taking away responsibility for many tasks that do not require physical touch. This allows the bedside nurse to focus on hands-on patient care and contributes to higher patient satisfaction because of the responsiveness and additional attentiveness it enables. Virtual nursing can also allow advanced nurse practitioners like PAs and ARNPs the ability to connect virtually with a virtual intensivist, and the virtual nurse can help with many of the nonphysical contact needs of patient care. Q. How can virtual nursing reduce the administrative burden on nurses and improve engagement and satisfaction? A. While hands-on care will always be needed, many duties can be fulfilled virtually, including coordinating procedures, getting sign-offs from multiple care team members, reconciling medications, providing patient education, answering questions, initiating the discharge process and more. In many successful virtual nursing programs, administrative tasks like discharge paperwork, medication reconciliation, etc., have been shifted from bedside to virtual nurses. Virtual nursing systems enable virtual nurses to monitor patients and communicate with them, their families, and other visitors and care team members in real time, including responding to patient nurse calls. The goal is to provide a new level of support to patients, nurses and the bedside team. Several health systems with virtual nursing programs have reported high job satisfaction for their virtual nurses. Nurses say the virtual role enables them to spend more time with patients overall. The extra time, and the complementary nature of virtual and bedside nursing roles, contributes to improved job satisfaction for both bedside and virtual nurses, and positive experiences for patients. Q. Please talk a bit about one of your hospital clients using virtual nursing and the results they've achieved. A. Overall, the benefits of virtual nursing include staffing flexibility, potential retention and recruitment advantages, the ability to leverage staff resources, and favorable nurse and patient satisfaction. Another major benefit of virtual nursing is a reduced length of stay, resulting in improved throughput, as well as time saved in the discharge process. Some lesser-known benefits of virtual nursing are a differentiated and improved patient experience, with potential associated improvements to patient satisfaction and HCAHPS and NPS scores. Patients also are seeing a significant improvement in satisfaction as they no longer have to pull a bedside staff member to help answer questions or assist with administrative documentation. Our client, Saint Luke's Health System in Kansas City, Missouri, has helped address the nursing shortage by having virtual nurses support bedside nurses. The virtual nurses can assist with non-hands-on care, education, documentation, admission, discharge, answering questions, and reviewing the care plan or physician rounding with the patient and their loved ones, among other tasks. The unit has enhanced Saint Luke's bedside care response rates, increased patient and nurse satisfaction, reduced the burden on bedside nurses, and positively impacted quality and safety for a better work environment. Patients are discharged within two hours of the discharge order, some 20% faster than in other units, and they're also out of the hospital before noon at a 44% faster rate. This has, in turn, reduced the wait time for patients in the ED and reduces the time to treatment. What's more, these benefits have boosted nurse morale, improving workforce engagement, reducing fatigue, even improving Saint Luke's recruitment capabilities. We need to provide nurses, our frontline workers, with technology that improves their work, quality of life, and the level and effectiveness of bedside care. Twitter: @SiwickiHealthIT Email the writer: bsiwicki@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/can-virtual-nursing-help-ease-clinician-burnout < Previous News Next News >

Increased Access to Care Via Telehealth in CHCs: NACHC Survey on Audio-Only Telehealth and Health Centers Center for Connected Health Policy July 2021 The concern from CHCs about possibly losing the ability to utilize telehealth was significant, with over 90% of respondents saying that without the extension of existing flexibilities it will be difficult to reach vulnerable populations, and over 80% stating that it will lead to worse outcomes for patients with behavioral health needs. Temporary telehealth policies during the pandemic, particularly those related to audio-only, highlighted the capacity of community health centers (CHCs) to increase patient access to care in underserved communities. The National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) recently released a report on their survey of CHCs to assess their telehealth experiences over the course of the public health emergency and determine what the effects would be upon termination of temporary policies, and how that would impact their providers and patients. The concern from CHCs about possibly losing the ability to utilize telehealth was significant, with over 90% of respondents saying that without the extension of existing flexibilities it will be difficult to reach vulnerable populations, and over 80% stating that it will lead to worse outcomes for patients with behavioral health needs. Overall, the report suggested that losing audio-only coverage would likely exacerbate existing health disparities. Prior to the pandemic, health centers faced numerous federal restrictions that limited their ability to use telehealth. According to the report, previously only around 40% had used telehealth and audio-only modalities. Once allowed during the pandemic, however, nearly all CHCs utilized telehealth and delivered critical health care services to 30 million patients. Urban health centers and those serving low-income populations were also found to have higher rates of providing services via telehealth and audio-only, and 92% of health centers said audio-only improved patient access to care. To continue to provide this expanded access to care post-pandemic via telehealth the report discussed the need for Congressional action to permanently remove restrictions around use of audio-only and originating/distant site limitations, as well as ensuring reimbursement parity. In addition, as many states struggle to determine their post-pandemic policies related to telehealth, it has become apparent that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) must also clarify whether states can continue to allow audio-only coverage under Medicaid and still receive federal matching funds. The value and necessity of audio-only was stressed throughout the survey. Benefits of audio-only telehealth included: *Reduced no-show rates *Improved patient/provider relationships *Better coordination of care amongst providers and families *Improved chronic care management The report concludes that without continued telehealth coverage for CHCs, all of the stated benefits will disappear, create a barrier to the provision of quality health care, and negate the ability for health centers to bring equity and access to underserved communities that would otherwise likely go without needed services. The authors urge the federal government to act and preserve access to care via telehealth in health centers across the country. Currently, there is active legislation federally and in many states that seeks to expand and extend telehealth and audio-only policies, including those for health centers. The fate of these bills remains unknown, but it is clear that the ideal resolution would need both federal direction and state engagement. A small but limited step was taken with CMS’s newly proposed physician fee schedule (PFS) for 2022. CMS is proposing to expand the definition of a “mental health visit” for CHCs by including mental health services provided through “interactive, real-time telecommunications technology”, including audio-only if the patient is not capable or does not consent to the use of live video. Additionally, the rate paid for eligible services would be at parity. This proposal is still rather narrow, but many of the existing restrictions, as mentioned previously, live in federal statute and must first be addressed by Congress. < Previous News Next News >

Joint Commission Updates Telemedicine Accreditation Rules Center for Connected Health Policy April 2021 Before a practitioner may provide services in a hospital, he or she must have their qualifications evaluated and verified. According to an article in The National Law Review, The Joint Commission recently announced slightly revised ‘credentialing by proxy rules’. Before a practitioner may provide services in a hospital, he or she must have their qualifications evaluated and verified. This process, known as credentialing, ensures an individual possesses the necessary qualifications to provide medical services to patients. ‘Credentialing by proxy’ allows a hospital receiving services to accept the distant site hospital’s credentialing and privileging decisions. Certain criteria must be met in order for a hospital to qualify to utilize credentialing by proxy. Previously, this included requiring both the originating site hospital and distant site hospital to be accredited with the Joint Commission. The new change allows the distant site telemedicine entity to be accredited with The Joint Commission or, alternatively, enrolled in the Medicare program. The affected standard is MS.13.01.01, EP 1, and is reflected in the Joint Commission’s 2021 update to their Comprehensive Accreditation Manuals. Comprehensive Accreditation Manuals: https://store.jcrinc.com/2021-comprehensive-accreditation-manuals/ < Previous News Next News >

River Valley Counseling Center boosts productivity and experience with telehealth Bill Siwicki June 01, 2022 From putting band-aids on decades-old computers to conducting high-quality telemedicine visits, the mental health organization is making its clinicians and patients happy. River Valley counseling Center's Holyoke Clinic in Holyoke, Massachusetts, always was trying to make ends meet with its technology. THE PROBLEM Its efforts to revamp and improve its technology were merely trial and error. Staff were putting band-aids on their technologies, struggling to figure out what the root of the issues were when disruptions would occur. Was it the computer itself? Network connectivity? A glitch in the signal? To put the extent of the issues in perspective, some hardware was more than a decade old; it could easily take clinicians five minutes just to reach the login screen. "When we thought one thing was addressed, another hurdle would pop up," recalled Chassity Crowell-Miller, LICSW, a clinical social worker at the clinic. "This element of touch and go was particularly challenging for mental healthcare, in which providers may be helping with sensitive, traumatic issues and were unnecessarily disrupted and inhibited by the outdated technology. "Overall, our clinicians' ability to help, as well as our patients' treatment and overall experiences, were negatively impacted," she added. It's important to note that the organization's Holyoke Clinic tends to an underserved population, with many patients being of low socioeconomic status. Across the community, there are high poverty, school dropout, substance abuse and violence rates. "For providers in our community and beyond, the past two years have been like nothing they have ever seen in the field," Crowell-Miller observed. "At the onset of COVID, while many organizations and communities were able to transition seamlessly to virtual learning and working in order to continue their work, River Valley counseling Center's Holyoke Clinic was not set up for this abrupt move to technology. "While telehealth has improved access to many outpatient services, marginalized patients – rural, poor, older and minority patients – may not have benefited equally from telehealth's expansion," she continued. "With all this in mind, River Valley counseling Center needed to receive the equipment, infrastructure and IT counsel necessary to support its people in our Holyoke location – both in person and via telehealth." PROPOSAL The cost of outdated technology often is not discussed, but for providers to do their jobs effectively, sound technology infrastructure is a table-stakes requirement, said Stephen Moss, senior vice president and general manager, connected workforce, at Insight, a health IT and infrastructure company. "The last two years have forced health providers to play IT catchup and significantly accelerate digital transformation," he said. "For many like River Valley counseling Center, it calls for starting with the basics. "They are navigating the impact of legacy infrastructure that is sometimes decades old, not to mention extremely outdated devices that magnify the frustration of resources that should make their work easier actually impeding their ability to care for patients," he continued. River Valley's challenges stood out to Insight. "To help, we focused on how to improve productivity and the client experience, particularly to address the lag and frozen sessions during telehealth consultations," Moss explained. "A simple upgrade to 50 new Intel-powered desktops and laptops has made daily multitasking an afterthought rather than a source of frustration for clinic staff. "To be able to hold a telehealth session without hang-ups not only allows River Valley's medical providers to more effectively address their clients' needs, by eliminating disruptions, they're gaining credibility and the ability to treat more people on a daily basis," he added. The Insight and Intel teams took a hands-on approach to provide and implement the right technology, at the right price, said Jason Kimrey, vice president, U.S. channel and partner programs, at Intel. "The strategy was informed by the mindset that having the best technology was the most effective way to maximize productivity for River Valley and its counselors," he said. "To help guide the process, we collaborated and leveraged our partner ecosystem to understand the unique challenges and pain points for the organization." MARKETPLACE There are many vendors of telemedicine technology and services on the health IT market today. Healthcare IT News published a special report highlighting many of these vendors with detailed descriptions of their products. Click here to read the special report. MEETING THE CHALLENGE With River Valley's considerations in mind, Intel prioritized implementing more modernized devices and hardware that provided an opportunity to update core infrastructures, Kimrey said. Intel upgraded network switches, physical hard drives, chips and more to accommodate for the increased bandwidth necessary for telehealth usage, he added. "As a team, Insight's counsel helped combine and implement all of this," Moss explained. "Going from barely conducting any services remotely before the pandemic to now doing most of their work via telehealth is a monumental culture change. Coping with new technology shouldn't be a burden on caregivers; it needs to be an intuitive, simplified experience. "When we work with organizations like River Valley, we start with understanding what their unique challenges are, who is impacted and what they need to accomplish in their daily work," he continued. "Then we figure out the right technology based on individual caregiver personas and their needs to optimize their user experience, productivity and ability to help their clients." Insight handles rapid provisioning, configuration and deployment for virtual desktop environments so new devices are ready to go out of the box with minimal setup and networking connection required by the organization's IT team or employees, he added. "Insight also has the ability to provide virtual IT support for day-to-day management of the health of the devices, which frees up organizations with limited internal IT resources, such as River Valley counseling Center, to focus on more meaningful transformative projects," Moss said. "For River Valley, they've gained the ability to quickly provide new devices to their staff that are ready to go with the applications they need," he added. "Their care providers now can work just as effectively from home or at the clinic." RESULTS Technology is critical to making peoples' lives better, and River Valley has really felt that, Crowell-Miller stated. Thus far, highlights for River Valley, she reported, have included: Improved client and clinician experience. There have been tangible benefits for the client experience – both internally and externally. The provider organization has increased its telehealth services from 5% pre-pandemic to 95% during the height of the pandemic, while removing common barriers like lag time and income lost from prior no-show rates. Now, because of the ability to adapt, adjust and shift to telehealth, when necessary, clinicians can meet the patients where they're at. Increased productivity. The technology addressed a loss of productivity and slowness for River Valley counseling Center, which impacted the quality of services it was able to provide. Even just logging onto computers is much faster and happens within seconds. Specifically, the organization has dramatically improved productivity by up to an estimated 25% for clinicians with minimal access to technology at home, making it easier to use the office for virtual or in-person visits when necessary. Providing community resources. River Valley counseling Center now is able to get a better foothold to help and serve the community. This technology isn't just transactional from a healthcare provider standpoint; having this infrastructure in place is mutually beneficial for the clinicians and the patients in ways beyond traditional appointments and hosting telehealth sessions. This technology has helped River Valley counseling Center put the resources in the hands of clients. River Valley works on these computers while seeing a patient in person, and staff are able to help provide resources like databases, printed materials and more for the patients. ADVICE FOR OTHERS "Because every organization is different, it's really important to ensure you're working with a technology partner that understands not only the healthcare sector and how technology plays a vital role in patient care, but also the unique challenges and needs of your operations, clinicians, patients and the community you serve," said Crowell-Miller. Twitter: @SiwickiHealthIT Email the writer: bsiwicki@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/river-valley-counseling-center-boosts-productivity-and-experience-telehealth < Previous News Next News >

State Telehealth Laws and Reimbursement Policies Report, Fall 2022 CCHP October 2022 The Center for Connected Health Policy’s (CCHP) Fall 2022 Summary Report of the state telehealth laws and Medicaid program policies is now available as well as updated information on our online Policy Finder tool. The most current information in the online tool may be exported for each state into a PDF document. The following is a summary of the current status of telehealth policy in the states given these new updates. CCHP provides these bi-annual summary reports in the Spring and Fall each year to provide a snapshot of the progress made in the past six months. CCHP is committed to providing timely policy information that is easy for users to navigate and understand through our Policy Finder. The information for this summary report covers updates in state telehealth policy made between July and early September 2022. Read the executive summary While this Executive Summary provides an overview of findings, it must be stressed that there are nuances in many of the telehealth policies. To fully understand a specific policy and all its intricacies, the full language of it must be read utilizing CCHP’s telehealth Policy Finder. For further information, visit cchpca.org. We hope you find the report useful, and welcome your feedback and questions. You can direct your inquiries to Amy Durbin, Policy Advisor or Christine Calouro, Policy Associate at info@cchpca.org . A special thank you to CCHP Policy Associate Veronica Collins for her invaluable contributions to this report. INTRODUCTION The Center for Connected Health Policy’s (CCHP) Fall 2022 analysis and summary of telehealth policies are based on information contained in its online Policy Finder. The Summary Report provides highlights on certain aspects of telehealth policy and the changes that have taken place between now and the previous edition, Spring 2022. The research for this edition of the Summary was conducted between July and early September 2022. This summary offers the reader an overview of telehealth policy trends throughout the nation. For detailed information by state, see CCHP’s telehealth Policy Finder which breaks down policy for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Please note that many states continue to keep their temporary telehealth COVID-19 emergency policies siloed from their permanent telehealth policies. These temporary policies are not included in this summary, although they are listed under each state in the online Policy Finder under the COVID-19 category. In instances where the state has made policies permanent, or extended policies for multiple years, CCHP has incorporated those policies into this report. See full report: https://www.cchpca.org/resources/state-telehealth-laws-and-reimbursement-policies-report-fall-2022/ < Previous News Next News >

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

What an eventual end to the PHE would mean for telehealth Andrea Fox October 17, 2022 Among other impacts, ending the PHE would represent access challenges and a loss of Medicaid coverage for millions, and would end medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder without an in-person exam. Since the COVID-19 public health emergency was declared in 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services has renewed the legislation every 90 days. Close to the end of the most recent expiration date, October 13, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra again signed a renewal determination and it was posted without announcement late in the day. There had been no official news, but a lot of hearsay that the PHE would be renewed once more, because the Biden Administration indicated it would give two months' notice before its expiration. There is also the matter that open enrollment begins on November 1, and without the relaxed enrollment provisions for Medicaid that the PHE provides, the national uninsured rate along with health premium costs would certainly rise. But by definition an "emergency" can't last forever. The inevitable end of the PHE could result in the loss of Medicaid to millions when states review enrollee eligibility and in other impacts to healthcare operations. Questions regarding what will happen to telehealth benefits and the continuum of care in the absence of the PHE loom large. There has been extensive support for making the changes that have launched telehealth and provided the opportunity to serve more patients, but some people want to halt the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth for mental health and substance abuse disorders and see the Ryan Haight Act – the online pharmacy consumer protection act of 2008 – reinstated. What's at stake Despite the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, which provides a 151-day extension on some flexibilities granted during the COVID-19 public health emergency once the PHE ends, providers and other healthcare professionals engaged in telehealth are eager to prepare for the expiration date. There has been mounting pressure from the Republican Party, including a September 19 letter from Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., with numerous questions about ending emergency powers after President Joe Biden remarked during his September 60 Minutes appearance that "the pandemic is over." "Without a clear plan to wind down pandemic-era policies, the deficit will continue to balloon and the effectiveness of public health measures will wane as the American people continue to be confused by mixed messages and distrust of federal officials," wrote Burr. Despite economic concerns, ending the legal waivers afforded under the PHE could ricochet, hammering against gains made in increased patient access. Dr. Adrienne Boissy, Qualtrics chief medical officer (and former Cleveland Clinic chief experience officer), notes that patients continue to rely on expanded digital access as mental health effects from the pandemic linger. She says that a reversal would limit digital health access, which an overly burdened and understaffed industry has come to rely on. "The ease and convenience telehealth provides are consistent sources of positive patient experiences, as well as decreased total costs of care and less time away from the workplace," she said in a statement to Healthcare IT News. "Comparing 2016 to 2022, clinicians also report better health outcomes for patients, efficiency and less stress/burnout as major drivers for adopting digital tools, including telehealth," she said. "With the PHE, we saw the industry put patients and their access to care first – no longer hindered by location or demographics. "To revert back to reimbursement models that only support in-person care unravels the gains of meeting people where they are – physically and emotionally," said Boissy. "We can’t turn back now," Boissy said. Brad Kittredge, CEO and cofounder of Brightside Health, adds that the country will be short of psychiatrists – by 14,280 to 31,109 – in just a few years. Ending the PHE presents a reduced ability to serve the growing number of patients in need of or seeking mental healthcare, he said. "While there’s no silver bullet solution, telehealth offers the best and most immediate solution to this growing challenge by increasing patient access to mental health specialists without being limited to geographic regions or facilities," Kittredge explained in a statement sent to HITN. "More significantly, telehealth enables us to use technology and data to help clinicians be more efficient and effective at treating their patients, maximizing the impact they can make," he said. Telehealth in legislative limbo During a recent American Telemedicine Association policy update, the ATA's federal and state-level telehealth policy experts described efforts to develop a consistent regulatory framework so telehealth can be deployed across states, be fully leveraged and address the patchwork of 50 different state requirements. Legislators have also proposed broadening access to telehealth through the Telehealth Benefit Expansion for Workers Act, the Telehealth Extension Act and the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act of 2021, which was passed by the House of Representatives in July, received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Finance, where it sits. Also at play are a number of loosened restrictions that opened the gateway to online treatment of certain conditions when uptake surged and access to in-person medical care was restricted. Healthcare organizations and retailers entering the space through mergers and acquisitions with healthcare providers have urged the U.S. Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Agency to revise telehealth controlled substance rules. The bill H.R. 7666 – the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022 – introduced by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., which was passed in the House, aims to address this hot-button issue for mental telehealth providers. The bill would permanently eliminate the X waiver, currently not required under the PHE. To qualify for the waiver to dispense buprenorphine for maintenance or detoxification treatment, the practitioner must take an eight-hour training and may only treat up to 30 opioid use disorder patients. Dr. Kristin Mack, a physician in Ticonderoga, N.Y., told MedPage Today that she would like to see the X waiver eliminated permanently. According to the story, rural communities are some of the hardest hit by the opiate epidemic. "We work really hard with community resources to provide counseling and things like that. But if I were to tell somebody, 'Oh, you have to go an hour away to a city to get care for this,' and then they need to be seen monthly, it's just not an option," she said. The Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022 was received in the Senate and was referred to its Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions at the time of reporting. Treating opioid use disorders via telehealth It has been more than 10 years since the Ryan Haight Act mandated that DEA establish a rule ensuring that healthcare providers can successfully prescribe controlled substances via telehealth, but there has been no rule set forward. The SUPPORT Act again mandated the DEA issue rulemaking by October 2019 and the fiscal year 2021 final appropriations report requested that the agency establish these rules, according to the website of Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. This past year he urged the Biden Administration to finalize regulations that allow doctors to prescribe controlled substances through telehealth. "In practice, the DEA’s failure to address this issue means that a vast majority of healthcare providers that use telehealth to prescribe controlled substances to and otherwise treat their patients have been deterred in getting them the quality care they need. These restrictions have been temporarily waived during the COVID-19 public health emergency, and I welcome that, but patients and providers need a more permanent and long-term solution to this long-delayed rulemaking," Warner wrote in May 2021. Under the PHE, several virtual behavioral health startups focused on medication-assisted treatment for substance abuse disorder received investment rounds, according to Chris Larson at Behavioral Health Business. According to the story, Doug Nemecek, the chief medical officer of behavioral health for Evernorth, said that not enough people are accessing MAT, and that overdose rates have reached historic highs. "If regulations come back that prevent those companies from being able to deliver care in that way, we’re concerned that it’s going to have a negative impact on patients and our ability to make sure that people have access to the MAT that we want them to have access to," Nemecek said. Evernorth, part of Cigna Corp., is connected to digital MAT companies like Quit Genius. The cofounder of Quit Genius, Dr. Maroof Ahmed, explained in an email to Healthcare IT News that telehealth has filled a void that existed before the PHE. "Telehealth flexibilities and ePrescribing waivers have been crucial in enabling providers to care for patients during the pandemic and have greatly expanded access to care in situations where patients were unable or unwilling to travel to a physical location," he insists. Reinstating Ryan Haight Act requirements also has support Amending the Ryan Haight Act law is an effort largely supported in the healthcare and mental health space. However, Dr. Mimi Winsberg, CMO and the other cofounder of Brightside Health, shared another point of view regarding the dubious practice of prescribing controlled substances without an initial in-person visit. "To count on a public health emergency temporary lifting of laws in order to stimulate growth of your business is perhaps a questionable practice," she told Healthcare IT News, noting that Brightside adhered to not prescribing controlled substances over telemedicine despite the legal waivers. "While a lot of medical visits moved to tele during this sort of difficult part of the pandemic, that now in most specialties, they have gone back to in-person, but what we are seeing in mental health is about 80% have stayed remote," she added. "And so patients are continuing to get their mental healthcare largely through telemedicine." Winsberg entertained the question out loud: "Will they be resistant to in-person appointments if they need certain kinds of prescriptions?" "I don't think they will because we have seen that they're willing to go back to the doctor for other reasons," she added. The net growth of prescription drugs issued – stimulants and other controlled substances – grew during the pandemic, and she says she questions if the growth was largely driven by online practices "that were taking advantage of the lifting of the Ryan Haight Act." Winsberg did acknowledge, however, that an inability to prescribe buprenorphine via telehealth for substance abuse disorder, "is potentially an issue," she said. "These laws exist for a reason, and what we have to balance in medicine is the willingness to help people with the do no harm principle." Establishing systematic monitoring of controlled-substance prescribing via telehealth could be achievable, Winsberg said. "But, we'd like to move towards appropriate prescriptions of controlled substances, and if we can find a way to meaningfully regulate that online, then great," she concluded. Equal treatment for mental health disorders In January, Dr. Robert Field and doctoral candidate Kimberly Williams at Drexel University published a commentary on the National Academy of Medicine website on the long overdue policy update needed to prescribe buprenorphine via telehealth. The authors say that those who need treatment for opioid use disorder should have the same level of telehealth access as others who receive treatment for other medical concerns. They also noted that the DEA has not created a registration process through the online pharmacy consumer protection act, despite Congressional requests and statutory actions. "Doing so would not only ensure increased access to treatment but also set the stage for systematic monitoring of telemedicine and telephone services to confirm they meet the same rigorous standards of care as in-person services. "Such quality assurance efforts could promote the development of best practice guidelines and reduce variations in care as usage of these modalities increases," they argue. For the mental telehealth provider community wondering if the ability to prescribe buprenorphine via telehealth fades away in five months – if the Biden Administration does not intervene and extend the PHE, Congress does not pass legislation and the DEA does not create a registration process for prescribing controlled substances for opioid use disorder via telehealth – the U.S. may face even higher overdose rates. Andrea Fox is senior editor of Healthcare IT News. Email: afox@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/what-eventual-end-phe-would-mean-telehealth < Previous News Next News >

Citing Medicaid misery, 25 governors push for PHE's end in April Molly Gamble December 21, 2022 In a letter sent to President Joe Biden this week, 25 governors ask for the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency in April. HHS last renewed the federal PHE in October for another increment of 90 days — until January 11 — with the pledge to provide states with 60 days' notice if it decided to terminate the declaration or allow it to expire. Since those 60 days came and went without notice, states are operating under the assumption the PHE will be renewed for another 90 days and expire in April, unless extended again. "We ask that you allow the PHE to expire in April and provide states with much needed certainty well in advance of its expiration," the governors urged Mr. Biden in their Dec. 19 letter. The governors claim the PHE hurts states, largely through the Medicaid flexibilities costing states "hundreds of millions of dollars." Under the continuous coverage requirement of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, state Medicaid agencies are barred from disenrolling people during the PHE — unless they request it — in exchange for an enhanced federal match. HHS estimates up to 15 million people will be disenrolled from Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program when the PHE ends. "While the enhanced federal match provides some assistance to blunt the increasing costs due to higher enrollment numbers in our Medicaid programs, states are required to increase our non-federal match to adequately cover all enrollees and cannot disenroll members from the program unless they do so voluntarily," the governors wrote to Mr. Biden. "Making the situation worse, we know that a considerable number of individuals have returned to employer sponsored coverage or are receiving coverage through the individual market, and yet states still must still account and pay for their Medicaid enrollment in our non-federal share." The governors sent their letter a day before Congress released its omnibus spending bill, which contains working language for states to be able to start evaluating Medicaid enrollees' eligibility as of April 1 in a redetermination process that would take place over at least 12 months. The measure also calls for phasing down the enhanced federal Medicaid funding through December 31, 2023, though states would have to meet certain conditions during that period. The American Hospital Association advocated for the latest extension of the PHE in October, noting that the majority of the hospital members it polled said they still depend on the flexibilities provided by the PHE waivers to deliver care. The letter was initiated by Chris Sununu, governor of New Hampshire, and signed by the following: Kay Ivey, Alabama Mike Dunleavy, Alaska Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas Doug Ducey, Arizona Ron DeSantis, Florida Brian Kemp, Georgia Brad Little, Idaho Eric Holcomb, Indiana Kim Reynolds, Iowa Charlie Baker, Massachusetts Tate Reeves, Mississippi Mike Parson, Missouri Greg Gianforte, Montana Pete Ricketts, Nebraska Doug Burgum, North Dakota Mike DeWine, Ohio Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma Henry McMaster, South Carolina Kristi Noem, South Dakota Bill Lee, Tennessee Greg Abbott, Texas Spencer Cox, Utah Glenn Youngkin, Virginia Mark Gordon, Wyoming See original article: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/citing-medicaid-misery-25-governors-push-for-phes-end-in-april.html?utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter < Previous News Next News >

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 >

FCC Announces Application Filing Window for Round Two of COVID-19 Telehealth Program Center for Connected Health Policy April 27, 2021 The application filing window for the second round of the COVID-19 Telehealth Program will open Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 12:00 PM ET The application filing window for the second round of the COVID-19 Telehealth Program will open Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 12:00 PM ET. Running one week, the filing window will close Thursday, May 6, 2021. The Program under the Federal Communications Commission was first established in April 2020 and provided with $200 million through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Congress provided an additional $249.95 million to the Program late last year through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, to support this second round of funding and further assist health care providers setting up the infrastructure necessary to provide services via telehealth. The new round of the program will be administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). Applications for the Program may be filed through a dedicated application portal, available on the COVID-19 Telehealth Program webpage. Round 1 applicants that were not funded will need to submit a new application. For additional information on Round 2, please refer to the Universal Service Administrative Company’s website. If you have specific questions regarding the Round 2 application process, please reach out to USAC at Round2TelehealthApplicationSupport@usac.org . COVID-19 Telehealth Program (Invoices & Reimbursements): https://www.fcc.gov/covid-19-telehealth-program-invoices-reimbursements Universal Service Administrative Company: https://www.usac.org/about/covid-19-telehealth-program/ < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth heavy hitter Dr. Roy Schoenberg on virtual care in 2023 Bill Siwicki December 14, 2022 The Amwell CEO reviews his successful predictions from last year and looks ahead at clinician-initiated telemedicine and virtual care shifting from transactional to transformational. From the distant past of the 1990s up to just a few years ago, many healthcare technologists have predicted that telemedicine would make it into the mainstream of healthcare delivery. Well, today, thanks to many factors surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has finally made it into the mainstream. And now that it is being so robustly used across the country, the big question is: What's next? We spoke with a heavy hitter in the world of telehealth, Dr. Roy Schoenberg, president and CEO of Amwell, one of the big players in telemedicine technology and services, to get his views on how his predictions from last year turned out and where virtual care is headed in 2023. Q. You predicted last year that in 2022 we'd see exciting advancements in remote patient monitoring and automation powered by the patients who need them most. How did that prediction turn out? A. Not only has the technology for remote patient monitoring and care automation become more advanced, but the use cases they are powering are maturing rapidly. Today, we're seeing applications of automation that go beyond mimicking clinicians and instead are being used to help patients manage the reality they face in the moments in between visits when they are not in front of clinicians. It's this area that I predict will grow more rapidly in the years ahead as it means that technology can actually assist clinicians in being there for their patients more frequently in a cost-effective way. As the industry struggles to keep up with workforce shortages and deal with financial constraints, technology that can serve clinicians and patients, while being financially viable, will become pervasive. Still, we've only just begun to scratch the surface of what RPM and automated care programs can do to drive more patient-centric, value-driven care. We can transform lives and quality of life by extending the reach of clinicians through digital technology and empowering people to live their healthiest life. Q. You also predicted that in 2022 patients will be interacting with healthcare both physically and through technology – hybrid care. How did that turn out? A. 2022 was a year of advancing the understanding that digital care is much more than videoconferencing. People now are coming to terms with the fact digital care is not just about changing where care happens but how care happens. By thinking about it as a true distribution arm, you can see how you can manage patient conditions differently, you can reach customers differently, you can motivate patients to play a more active role in their healthcare – this is a powerful reimagination of traditional care models. Hybrid care models that combine physical and virtual interactions was the first iteration of seeing this understanding play out; and we saw these models accelerate significantly. The next phase is hybrid care models that combine physical, virtual and automated interactions. It's this type of digital care delivery that we are focused on enabling our clients to achieve through an integrated platform approach that allows for a well-coordinated, seamless care experience across all settings. Q. What are two predictions you have for 2023 on technological advances in telemedicine? A. In 2023, we'll continue to see digital health's influence in completely reimagining how care is accessed and delivered. It's a transformation that will be sparked not just by consumer demand for digital care, but also by clinician preference. In fact, clinician-initiated digital care will far outpace patient-initiated virtual interactions going forward, with clinicians becoming the top utilization driver. It's a trend we've already started to see. We've reached a point where physicians and nurses are prescribing virtual care. Within physician practices, medical assistants are triaging patients for virtual encounters when the manner in which they are seen – in person or virtually – is less important than the need for speedy access to care. In an era when patients are surrounded by devices, we'll not only gain greater knowledge of potential use cases for RPM and automated care, but also a wealth of data around which approaches work best in specific circumstances. These findings will further advance digital care from a "nice to have," convenient feature to an integral aspect of the continuum of care. Additionally, I predict digital care will continue to shift from transactional to transformational. Virtual primary care is becoming ubiquitous, however the opportunity for virtual primary care is dramatically extended when it's tightly integrated with escalation paths to create a more comprehensive care experience. Discussions around digital care's trajectory will increasingly examine how to more tightly integrate virtual care and digital health within the complete patient journey. It will be a time of reinvigoration around the power of what is still a relatively new component of care. Some of our best learnings around digital health will take place in this space where the immediate pressures of COVID-19 have passed, and clinicians feel more free to imagine: "What's next?" Q. What's a prediction you have for 2023 regarding telemedicine public policy? A. One of the biggest challenges for the digital care industry continues to be around state licensure. It's clear we need to allow healthcare to be distributed around the country through technology – the internet does not stop at state lines. What's less clear, however, is who on Capitol Hill will be the one to say, "We have to find another way." Change must occur in partnership with medical boards that will continue to play an important role in enabling the safe practice of medicine. It's inevitable this will be the biggest war we'll see play out over the next few years and it will greatly impact the future of care distribution. Follow Bill's HIT coverage on LinkedIn: Bill Siwicki Email the writer: bsiwicki@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/telehealth-heavy-hitter-dr-roy-schoenberg-virtual-care-2023 < Previous News Next News >

Broadband Funding Frameworks and Updates Center for Connected Health Policy July 2021 The report released last month suggests the need for $106 - $179 billion to future-proof networks and get higher broadband speeds to those that currently need them. Addressing Gaps in Broadband Infrastructure Availability and Service Adoption: A Cost Estimation & Prioritization Framework is an analysis conducted by ACA Connects, an association representing small and rural broadband providers which projects that broadband funding levels should be higher than recent federal funding proposals offer. The report released last month suggests the need for $106 - $179 billion to future-proof networks and get higher broadband speeds to those that currently need them. Although President Biden’s initial proposal put $100 billion toward broadband, the latest bipartisan agreement, or Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework, currently only designates $65 billion to broadband. The details of the new agreement are still unclear and issues of contention remain. It is also, uncertain how the funding is proposed to be allocated. Some articles and insiders suggest the majority of the funding will be given to states and the rest split between smaller federal programs, leaving out the FCC, which is the main agency currently administering broadband programs. In addition, the White House recently released fact sheets for each individual state, to show the needs and impacts the framework proposes to provide across the country. As additional details come together, the ACA Connects study framework could be helpful for policymakers in determining both appropriate funding levels and allocations to truly improve and expand broadband access. In particular, the report recommends policymakers look at their funding priorities through an availability lens and an adoption lens, both of which require setting eligibility thresholds. For instance, how will “unserved” be defined and which households should be eligible for support. In addition, they suggest funding allocations be determined by what subsidy amount would actually be needed by each household and how many are likely to participate. Using such calculations, the analysis provides sample funding approaches and cost assessments in addition to its overall estimate. The report suggests that with $35-67 billion the U.S. could increase broadband availability to 19 million locations. Whether policymakers will consider the analysis remains as unknown as whether they will complete the current federal infrastructure deal as proposed. One thing does remain clear - even if a deal is finalized and passed, how the funding is targeted will remain vital to its success at improving broadband access. For more information review the ACA Connects full analysis - https://acaconnects.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Addressing-Gaps-in-Broadband-Infrastructure-Availability-and-Service-Adoption-ACA-Connects-and-Cartesian-June2021.pdf. < Previous News Next News >

CMS-Supported Telehealth Will Continue To Be A Driving Force – But Watch for Greater OIG Enforcement The National Law Review March 3, 2022 As mindsets pivoted to a post-pandemic life, telehealth advocates petitioned CMS to embrace telehealth as a permanent care option, and CMS responded with regulatory action at the end of 2021. During the Covid-19 Pandemic, telehealth usage surged as patients and providers turned to it as a safer care alternative. McKinsey estimated telehealth claim volumes reached 80 times pre-pandemic levels at its peak, ultimately stabilizing at 38 times pre-pandemic levels by early 2021.1 This increase was mostly driven by CMS’ waivers and relaxation of regulatory constraints for telehealth reimbursement. But, the temporary nature of both left questions regarding telehealth’s future. In December 2021, CMS issued new regulations which, collectively, steer telehealth toward becoming a part of the telebehavioral health toolkit accepted by Medicare post-pandemic. In the CY2021 Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule2 , further discussed here, CMS broadly expanded access to telebehavioral health services. Specifically, Medicare permanently authorized payment for telehealth services furnished “for purposes of diagnosis, evaluation or treatment of a mental health disorder” under the following relaxed criteria:3. Read full article here: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/cms-supported-telehealth-will-continue-to-be-driving-force-watch-greater-oig < Previous News Next News >

Telemedicine and diagnosis Adriana Albini September 27, 2022 The adoption of telemedicine and its range of applications grew exponentially in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the general consensus now is that it is here to stay, albeit perhaps with a more hybrid bias of in-person and remote visits. Telediagnosis, or TeleDx, i.e., the identification of a disease at a site remote from the patient, has expanded to include primary care, revolutionising the way in which patients and doctors communicate with each other and establish rapport. It is still early days to fully evaluate the effect of virtual vs in-person visit on diagnostic error, but there are guidelines for health professionals to conduct effective virtual examinations, and many best practice examples, both in terms of ways to gather information from the patient (from wording of questionnaires to digital records, home environment, and so on) and technological innovations. In cancer care, pathology plays a central role in the final diagnosis upon which clinicians will develop treatment for their patient, and remote pathology can offer many advantages, such as easier access to pathology experts, consultation among specialists, timely and secure availability of images, and so on. Up until the 1990s, pathologists worked almost entirely within the constraints of the analogue world, with physical glass slides and microscopes. Some attempts were made at capturing virtual images of slides through a tiling method, which was time consuming and prone to error, as it required accurate placing and extensive stitching together of images. But at the end of that decade, engineer Dirk G. Soenksen (founder, and CEO of Aperio) devised a much more efficient system based on a linear scanner, the ScanScope, that allowed for tightly focussed and fast slide image capture, opening a new era for the practice of pathology. Whole slide imaging, or WSI, was first employed in education and research but in recent years, with the improvement of its technology, it has received regulatory approval by the FDA and around the world for diagnostic use as well. The potential for feeding AI algorithms to provide diagnostical support is massive, as virtual slides are accumulating fast and standardised databases are being built. “Telemedicine in Cancer Care Continuum: implementation and integration”, was an online conference developed by the SPCC in collaboration with the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), which took place on 6-7 May 2022. In his presentation, Liron Pantanowitz, Professor of Pathology, and Director of Anatomical Pathology at the University of Michigan, talked about telepathology in both its non-acute and acute settings, focussing more extensively on the latter. The term ‘telepathology’ was coined by Ronald S. Weinstein in 1986, after he organised the first public event of satellite-enabled dynamic-robotic distant pathology, but the very first live telepathology ever performed dates as far back as to 1968. Massachusetts General Hospital set up a two-way television link with Boston’s Logan Airport that enabled doctors at the hospital to remotely study blood smears, urine samples and X-rays for patients at the airport, and even listen to their heartbeat with an electronic stethoscope. However, as in the case of telehealth in general, the adoption of digital pathology had to wait until the Covid-19 pandemic to be widely implemented. To facilitate continuity of healthcare while social distancing, certain restrictions were lifted, such as CLIA in the US, allowing pathologists to work from home and sign out cases. The first use of telepathology Prof. Pantanowitz looked at was for frozen section consultation. There are several challenges when a pathologist is asked to provide an intraoperative consultation. The pathology specimen is fresh, not easy to cut. The frozen section itself is difficult to prepare and is often filled with artifacts. These artifacts not only make it hard to read the glass slides but can compound the problem when using digital images. The turnaround time needs to be rapid. Usually, pathologists strive for less than 20 minutes to provide the surgeon with an answer. And they are under serious diagnostic pressure because if they get it wrong, it is difficult to reverse the surgical decision that has been made based on their diagnosis. Over the past 54 years different modes of practising telepathology have been developed. A pathologist on site can take static images, which is easy but too time-consuming. There is also video microscopy, live streaming from one pathologist to another. If there is no pathologist present on site to read the slides, there are systems such as robotic microscopy, where the pathologist can remotely take control of the functions on a microscope, such as navigation and focus. And there is also Whole Slide Imaging, which is the entire digitization of a slide to be remotely reviewed. Thanks to advancements in technology, hybrid devices are now available from many vendors with robotics and Whole Slide Imaging functions in one scanner. See full article: https://cancerworld.net/telemedicine-and-diagnosis/ < Previous News Next News >

Audio-Only Telemedicine In Primary Care: Embraced In The NHS, Second Rate In The US Rebecca Fisher, Urmimala Sarkar, Julia Adler-Milstein December 5, 2022 Use of telemedicine in primary care soared in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and remains well above pre-pandemic levels. In the US, a major enabler of this shift is equal reimbursement across video, audio, and in-person visits. Policy makers must now choose whether to extend these COVID-19-era telemedicine policies. A key decision is whether audio-only telemedicine should be covered and if so, whether it should retain parity with video-based telemedicine. The dominance of video over audio in the US suggests that an appropriate policy strategy would be to not reimburse for audio-only telemedicine or reimburse at markedly lower levels. However, US policy makers would be wise to look internationally first—where experience suggests that audio-only can be an effective and more equitable means of delivering primary care. In the National Health Service (NHS) in England, almost one in three consultations in general practice is audio-only; a figure that has been stable since October 2021. This represents a major rise; pre-pandemic around 10 percent of consults were by phone. Despite efforts from UK policy makers such as fast-tracking funding for online consultation tools, the number of video consults remains stubbornly low, at just 0.4 percent of appointments. This is despite the fact that most NHS primary care practices are video-equipped, and the US and UK populations do not differ significantly in their digital literacy. What Explains The Higher Levels Of Audio-Only Telemedicine In The UK Versus US? There is no evidence that directly answers this important question. We therefore leverage circumstantial considerations to develop three possible explanations. National Policy Given the active efforts of policy makers at the start of the pandemic to expand availability of telemedicine, an initial explanation is that the countries implemented different policies regarding telemedicine provision—with the US pursuing policies that favored video while the UK pursued policies that favored audio. However, we are not aware of any such policy differences. In both countries, policy makers acted swiftly to make it easier for providers to consult using either modality. National guidance issued to practices in England encouraged use of phone and video encounters “tailored to the person, the circumstance and their needs,” but there was no directive to prioritize audio-only above video consulting. In the US, emergency legislation removed barriers to telemedicine consulting, including giving parity of reimbursement across audio and video encounters (theoretically an incentive to drive up audio-only rates). Both countries reduced regulatory barriers to video consultation, allowing providers to use non-medical video call applications such as Skype and Facetime. But neither country mandated—or strongly incentivized—provision of one telemedicine modality over the other. Path Dependence A second explanation is one of path dependence. The idea that faced with the need to act fast and little central planning or coordination, health care delivery organizations disproportionately scaled-up the form of telemedicine that made sense given prior circumstances before the pandemic. In the NHS, the use of audio-only for triage and traditional encounters in general practice was common pre-pandemic. In 2019, 10 percent of encounters in English general practice were by phone, compared to fewer than 1 percent across both telemedicine modalities in the US. The public was also used to receiving health advice by phone—the NHS 111 service is a free phoneline to help people in England access non-emergency medical advice and to link them to local NHS services. Thus, when the pandemic hit, it was easier to act quickly to scale the more familiar modality of audio. In contrast, the US did very little of either modality pre-pandemic, and in an effort to more closely replicate face-to-face care at the start of the pandemic when in-person care was not an option, US practices chose to ramp up video-based telemedicine. Provider Perceptions Of Quality While path dependence emphasizes the concept of choice driven by ease, a third potential explanation is that, instead of prior familiarity driving decisions about modality offerings, these decisions were driven by different perceptions of the strengths and limitations of each modality. In the UK, analysis of why general practitioners hadn’t used video consultations found that despite improvements in functionality and reliability of video consultation tools, practitioners viewed video encounters as logistically more challenging and more cognitively demanding than either face-to-face or telephone consulting. Physicians felt that many presenting problems could be sorted safely by telephone, with in-person assessment required for the remainder. Where problems required visual assessment, physicians preferred a combination of photograph plus telephone consultation (SMS technology is widely embedded in general practice [GP] electronic health records). Consensus from UK physicians seems to be that video provides little benefit over audio-only. Differential uptake of video over audio-consulting suggests that US physicians feel differently; surveys of US physicians have highlighted concerns about the diagnostic accuracy of telephone visits, and their suitability for new patients. The acceptability of different telemedicine modalities to patients is another dimension of quality that could have driven what health care delivery organizations offered. Evidence from the UK suggests that telephone appointments are a popular appointment modality in general practice. Indeed, analysis of 7.5 million patient-initiated requests for care across 146 primary care providers found that telephone consultation was the most popular patient preference, requested by 55 percent of people seeking care, with fewer than 1 percent of requests seeking a video consult. In the US, one trial reports similar patient satisfaction with audio and video consults, but it is possible that US physicians felt that patients expected video consultations and made efforts to oblige. Based on circumstantial evidence, we suspect that path dependence and perceptions of quality worked together to push the countries in different directions. While more conclusive evidence is needed, explanation three raises the more critical question of how to move from perceptions of quality differences to robust evidence that can inform choice of modality. What Is Currently Known About Which Modality Is Better From A Quality Perspective? The clearest evidence on differences between modalities is about access, where audio-only has clear advantages over video consults in promoting equity. People with the greatest need for health care may be least enabled to access it digitally—termed the “digital inverse care law.” In both the US and the UK, digital exclusion is socially patterned. Older people, those in lower-income groups, people with disabilities, or who do not have English as a first language are more likely to be digitally excluded. In the telemedicine context, video visits require digital literacy and access to technology and broadband/data that are not ubiquitous. On the health system side, providing video visits requires health centers and staff to overcome barriers including cost, training, and technology. These barriers may be more likely to occur in safety-net settings. In the US, video visits are more common in people earning above $100,000, White people, younger people, and people with private health insurance. In contrast, users of audio-only telemedicine are more likely to be Black people, older adults, and on Medicaid. With telephony already embedded in health centers and 97 percent of Americans owning cell phones, audio-only telemedicine represents an important means of accessing care for underserved populations. Beyond equitable access, we lack evidence on differences in other dimensions of quality between the two consultation modes, either overall or in specific clinical scenarios. Unfortunately, there is a major obstacle to such evidence generation: In the US, we do not routinely capture the specific telemedicine modality in use and therefore cannot readily compare audio-only to video encounters. Ruth Hailu and colleagues describe the range of interventions—including simplifying coding and adapting electronic health records—required to generate data that would support comparative analysis. However, even with such data available, the choice of modality is non-random, and individuals are likely to receive a blended mix of consultation types during episodes of care. Disentangling the impact of each encounter modality on a range of clinical and patient-reported outcomes would be a substantial research undertaking. Large, diverse population observational studies may be required, alongside a range of qualitative studies of patient and physician experience. Some of this evidence will take years to gather, and decisions on extending coverage beyond the pandemic emergency will likely be required before a full picture is clear. Neither health system can claim an “evidence-based” strategy—and it likely that neither the US nor the NHS has it right yet. So Where Does This Leave Policy Makers? In the UK, there is no urgent policy decision to be made around reimbursement, since all forms of telemedicine are covered by the capitated payment system for general practice. Instead, debate has focused on whether access to in-person appointments is now too limited. This is framed by decreasing public satisfaction with access to general practice, in the context of ongoing and severe shortages of primary care physicians. Despite nudges from policy makers, the pandemic has barely shifted the number of video consultations in general practice, and use of telephone consulting has expanded instead. Ongoing studies will monitor outcomes of this change and may require expansion to help the NHS identify an optimal blend of consulting modes. With UK general practitioners unconvinced of quality benefits of video consultations, it is likely that compelling evidence of their benefit would be required for use to increase. US policy makers face more difficult choices about ongoing reimbursement for audio-only telemedicine. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 extends certain telehealth coverages for 151 days after the official end of the federal public health emergency, thus going some way to preventing a “telehealth cliff.” But with the World Health Organization recently discussing for the first time the possibility of ending their emergency declaration on COVID-19, decisions about funding for audio-only and/or video will need to be made relatively soon. In the absence of robust evidence, decisions are likely to hinge on perceptions of the quality of different consultation modes. Arguments against payment parity between audio-only and video telehealth are likely to focus on early perceptions that audio is a lower-quality modality or prone to overuse. These arguments and their rebuttals have been clearly described already. However, given the clear evidence of the meaningful benefits for reaching underserved people, the US should extend coverage of audio-only telemedicine for a minimum of five years. During this time, perceptions of quality can be informed by empirical evidence, such that we can either phase out audio-only in an equitable way or give providers more flexibility to combine use of modalities. Even with reimbursement parity, policy makers will need to invest in complementary enablers of equitable telemedicine access through state-level action. As Elaine Khoong writes, avoiding a two-tier system where video encounters are disproportionately available to the wealthy requires policy makers to expand video-visit capacity in the safety net, alongside community-based strategies to improve digital literacy. Given that telehealth does not necessitate the same geographical constraints as in-person care—for example, with respect to physician licensing or online prescribing—amending policies to streamline provision across states is also vital. A Role For Payment Reform? The past two years have shown that telephone and video consultation can be combined to deliver high-quality and efficient care. Going forward, patients are likely to receive a blended mix of appointments across modalities, tailored to clinical need and individual circumstance. In the NHS, capitated payments give clinicians and managers the flexibility to offer a mix of appointment modalities, based on the clinical situation without the need to consider differential reimbursement or administrative burden. In fee-for-service models, differentiating payment levels across telemedicine modalities is likely to increase bureaucracy and risks decreasing efficiency and quality. In the longer run, experience from both systems suggests that we should move away from modality-based reimbursement. In recent testimony to the US Senate’s Committee on Finance, Robert Berenson suggested that fee-for-service is a particularly flawed payment model for telemedicine, and that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should consider paying for telehealth services in a similar model to the UK: via monthly capitated payments for primary care physicians as part of a hybrid payment model. Capitated payment systems enable physicians to use the encounter modality considered most appropriate for the situation without worrying about how they will be paid (or the patient billed). Berenson’s proposal would allow physicians and patients to tailor the type of telemedicine encounter more precisely to individual patient need and might reduce bureaucracy associated with billing, in turn increasing efficiency. As evidence on the benefits and risks of each modality emerges, such a payment model also allows rapid translation of evidence into practice. Authors’ Note Professor Sarkar holds current research funding from the National Cancer Institute, California Healthcare Foundation, the Food and Drug Administration, HopeLab, and the Commonwealth Fund. She has received prior grant funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She received gift funding from The Doctors Company Foundation. She holds contract funding from AppliedVR, InquisitHealth, Somnology, and RecoverX. Professor Sarkar serves as a scientific/expert adviser for nonprofit organizations HealthTech 4 Medicaid (volunteer) and for HopeLab (volunteer). She is a member of the American Medical Association’s Equity and Innovation Advisory Group (honoraria). She is an adviser for Waymark (shares) and for Ceteri Capital I GP, LLC (shares). She has been a clinical adviser for Omada Health (honoraria), and an advisory board member for Doximity (honoraria). See original article: https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/audio-only-telemedicine-primary-care-embraced-nhs-second-rate-us#.Y45MpkrZubQ.twitter < 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 >

Study: Teletherapy program reduces OCD symptoms Emily Olsen May 23, 2022 Researchers found a 43.4% mean reduction in patient-rated obsessive-compulsive symptoms. A teletherapy program reduced symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and most patients maintained improvements up to a year later, according to a study published in JMIR. The treatment, from digital mental health company NOCD, included twice-weekly video appointments that used exposure and response prevention (ERP) therapy for three weeks. Patients then underwent six weeks of weekly half-hour video check-ins. Researchers followed up with the patients three, six, nine and twelve months after the therapy program. The study found a 43.4% mean reduction in patient-rated obsessive-compulsive symptoms as well as a 44.2% mean reduction in depression, a 47.8% mean reduction in anxiety and a 37.3% mean reduction in stress symptoms. Of the more than 3,500 patients included in the study, more than 1,600 participated in follow-up surveys. The study's authors were employed by NOCD or reported they had received payments from NOCD while conducting the study. "The effect size was large and similar to studies of in-person ERP. This technology-assisted remote treatment is readily accessible for patients, offering an advancement in the field in the dissemination of effective evidence-based care for OCD," researchers wrote. WHY IT MATTERS The study's authors noted the virtual intervention took about 12 weeks and fewer than 11 therapist hours. "Technology assistance likely played an important role in this treatment’s ability to both engage and treat a large number of patients in wide-ranging geographic locations and to achieve a high mean rate of symptom improvement and a high rate of treatment response," they wrote. "Teletherapy using video allows people in remote locations to access treatment and to be able to complete, in-session, in vivo exercises in places and situations that are most relevant to, or triggering of, their symptoms." THE LARGER TREND NOCD announced it had raised $33 million in Series B funding in September last year. That brought its total financing to $50 million, according to Crunchbase. Mental health technology funding increased 139% globally in 2021, compared with 2020, bringing in $5.5 billion, according to a CB Insights report. Meanwhile, mental healthcare makes up a large portion of telehealth utilization in the U.S. Though utilization fell nationally in February, mental health diagnoses still made up more than 64% of telehealth claim lines, according to FAIR Health's tracker. For original article: https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/study-teletherapy-program-reduces-ocd-symptoms < Previous News Next News >

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

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

Amazon’s New Partnership With Teladoc Is A Huge Milestone For Telemedicine Sai Balasubramanian, M.D., J.D., Contributor March 23, 2022 Last month, global technology and e-commerce giant Amazon and telemedicine company Teladoc announced a landmark new initiative: providing virtual care through Amazon Alexa devices. The announcement indicates that “Customers in the U.S. will now be able to connect with a Teladoc care provider 24/7 from supported Echo devices for general medical needs. Teladoc on Alexa will initially launch via audio with video visits coming soon.” Donna Boyer, Chief Product Officer of Teladoc, explained further: “Teladoc Health’s collaboration with Amazon is yet another step in breaking down barriers to healthcare access […] By introducing and integrating our virtual first care experience with Echo devices, we are providing an innovative and convenient way for users to connect with a doctor. We are meeting consumers where they are, to continue to deliver value and high-quality care to members.” Indeed, this is a huge milestone for both companies. Teladoc went public in a deal worth nearly $157 million dollars in 2015, right when digital health and telehealth were becoming more prominent concepts in care delivery. However, Teladoc found its true stride during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, when people worldwide were forced into isolation and quarantine—highlighting the value of virtual care services. Indeed, the concept has significant promise in solving many modern day healthcare problems. Congruently, Amazon has continued to make its own strides in healthcare. With the launch of Amazon Care as well as its robust pharmaceutical services, the company is slowly but surely developing an entire ecosystem which will likely soon become a mainstream modus of care delivery. Now, with this new partnership, both companies are significantly increasing their reach. With 100s of millions of Alexa devices currently in use, the potential value of this partnership is endless. It provides consumers with a convenient, easy, and creative way to get their healthcare services inside of their own homes. The process is relatively simple: “To get started, customers can say, ‘Alexa, I want to talk to a doctor,’ to their supported Echo device to get connected with the Teladoc call center. Customers will then get a call back on their Echo devices from a Teladoc doctor for virtual visits related to non-emergency health needs, such as experiencing symptoms of a cold, flu, or allergies. The cost per visit can be as low as $0 per visit with insurance or $75 without insurance.” For full article click this link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/saibala/2022/03/23/amazons-new-partnership-with-teladoc-is-a-huge-milestone-for-telemedicine/?sh=7acb8fcd7f18 < Previous News Next News >