Search this site

New Coding Modifier Offers Opportunity To Investigate Audio-Only Telehealth Alexander Beschloss, Ryan Van Ramshorst, Chethan Bachireddy, Christopher Chen, Andrey Ostrovsky November 18, 2022 Prior to the pandemic, Medicaid program coverage of audio-only telehealth services was limited. During the early stages of the pandemic, Medicaid beneficiaries were significantly less likely to complete telehealth visits compared to commercially insured patients. This was likely due to a series of obstacles, including: lack of access to high-quality broadband, a device with video capability, requisite digital skills, and private space to conduct the visit. For example, in 2019, roughly one in four Medicaid enrollees lived in a home without internet or with limited computer access. That said, Medicaid beneficiaries do not have significantly less access to devices with video capability (such as smartphones) than other patient populations, suggesting network connectivity poses more of a barrier than device access. Even further, nearly 50 percent of low-income patients in the US may not have requisite digital health literacy to use virtual telehealth. However, considering that 86 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries own a smartphone, it may be inferred that many more have sufficient digital literacy to engage in audio-only care rather than audio-visual telehealth. Network connectivity and low rates of digital literacy are two barriers that highlight the importance of creating the infrastructure to deliver and measure audio-only visits is of increased necessity. It was in this context that, once the pandemic struck, Medicaid agencies changed policies to augment access to telehealth services. For example, 17 state Medicaid agencies expanded reimbursement to include multiple modalities of telehealth, including audio-only. These changes particularly supported patient populations who had transportation, childcare, employment, or income barriers that prevent in-person care—challenges that are more prevalent in the Medicaid population. These policy innovations narrowed the reimbursement gap among in-person, audio-only, and audio-visual visits. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently investigated differences in patient populations who receive telehealth audio-only versus audiovisual use in 2021. For telehealth visits, Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to use audio-only care than were privately insured patients (35.1 percent versus 45.5 percent). They discovered that compared to White patients, who used audio-only care for 38.1 percent of their telehealth visits, Latino, Black, and Asian patients did so at rates of 49.3 percent, 46.4 percent, and 48.7 percent, respectively. Patients with less than a high school education used it at 61.9 percent of their telehealth visits, compared to those with greater than a bachelor’s degree, who did such at a rate of only 32.6 percent. Across income brackets, there is an inverse relationship between household income and audio-only telehealth use. As the use of audio-only telehealth became more widespread among Medicaid beneficiaries, state Medicaid leaders needed a mechanism to measure clinical outcomes, health care costs, and patient experiences related to audio-only telehealth. Providers also needed a dedicated billing construct that could be used across public and private payers to streamline billing processes. Until recently, such mechanisms simply did not exist. And so, due to these insufficient coding constructs, several Medicaid medical directors spearheaded an application to the American Medical Association (AMA) to create a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) modifier that would specifically designate audio-only services. In September 2021, the AMA CPT Editorial Panel accepted the addition of the CPT Modifier 93 code for synchronous audio-only telehealth, and the code became active on January 1, 2022. This article provides an overview of the rationale for and process of creating the CPT Modifier 93 code. Potential Benefits Of Audio-Only CPT Modifier Why was the creation of a new audio-only modifier necessary? Several reasons: data collection, policy implementation, health care equity, widespread need, and service specificity. The CPT 93 modifier permits differentiation among audio-only, audiovisual, and in-person care at the administrative level, which subsequently allows health service researchers to monitor and evaluate the use and clinical efficacy among these methods of care delivery. Prior to the introduction of this modifier, such high-quality analyses were impossible to do at scale. Along with the increase in all modalities of telehealth use since the COVID-19 public health emergency (63 fold increase year over year between 2019 and 2020), a survey performed by HHS (across all 50 states and the District of Columbia) discovered that 45.5 percent of all telehealth usage amongst Medicaid beneficiaries was audio-only. Taking things one step farther, several state legislatures including Washington, Connecticut, and New York have recently passed laws mandating or allowing coverage for audio-only services. Audio-only telehealth is being highly used, therefore having a mechanism to collect related data is vital. Implementing this modifier will serve as a tool for policy makers to make informed adjustments in policy around patients who use audio-only services. Implementation of this modifier will also enable claims-based research to monitor for disparities between audiovisual and audio-only care to ensure that all modalities of telehealth are provided in a sustainable, equitable, and high-quality fashion. Additionally, because different states have implemented varying strategies to cover audio-only services during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), the CPT 93 modifier will help health services researchers and policy makers discern the differences between coverage approaches, information that will be crucial in standardizing telehealth data collection/storage across states. From a coding perspective, adding an audio-only modifier to existing and widely used CPT codes is a far more feasible option than alternatives such as individual payers developing their own coding modifiers. That approach would become unreasonably burdensome on providers who would subsequently have to learn and bill using the system established by each payer. Previous Codes Did Not Suffice While CPT codes for services provided through telephone exist, they do not specify the enormous range of behavioral health services, therapies, maternity-related care, post-operative guidance, and other services that have been successfully delivered via audio-only technology since the COVID-19 PHE. For example, CPT code 99441 represents a “telephone evaluation and management service; 5–10 minutes of medical discussion,” which gives no specificity regarding what type of care was delivered. In comparison, the CPT 93 modifier can be attached to theoretically any billing code that is permitted under law, thus allowing for more precise tracking and more useful follow-up research. Prior to the introduction of the CPT 93 modifier, there were seldom CPT codes that could be used to represent audio-only telehealth for specific services. Even though audio-only telehealth has been delivered at high rates, states have only been able to use temporary or workaround solutions to bill for audio-only services. For example, the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II code for crisis response (CR) has been used by some states to support audio-only services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the two and a half years since the pandemic began, however, the use of audio-only to provide health services has become normalized and may in fact now be expected by Medicaid providers and beneficiaries—a reality for which the CR code, and its temporary application, was not designed. The CPT 93 solves this challenge on a national scale. Another prior attempt to capture audio-only telehealth was the CPT modifier 95 that only indicated a telehealth service and did not differentiate between audio-only and audio-visual care. HCPCS Level II code “G0” has also been used; however, it indicates a telehealth service for diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment specific to symptoms of an acute stroke. Furthermore, CPT code 99401 can be used to reflect counseling services that may be provided via audio-only care; however, this code failed to capture all the nuance of the amount of time of care was delivered. At the end of the COVID-19 PHE, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to add the “FQ” modifier on claims for HCPCS code G2080 for counseling and therapy provided using audio-only telecommunications. The HCPCS G2080 code refers to when one provides therapy services that largely exceed the amount listed in the patient’s individualized treatment plan for medication assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. This modifier exists solely for CMS’s Opioid Treatment Program and fails to account for other indications for audio-only telehealth. Creating a CPT modifier that is applicable to all service types simplifies the codification and measurement of audio-only care across all payer types. Conduct More Research On Audio-Only Telehealth Researchers, provider organizations, and policy makers must investigate and ensure that audio-only telehealth drives strong clinical outcomes. Telephone-focused care has been an important part of primary care; however, much of it was after hours, unmeasured, and not reimbursed. There is strong evidence on audio-only telehealth’s efficacy in prenatal visits and insomnia, for example. A randomized clinical control trial in a patient population of the Kaiser Permanente Washington system received audio-only cognitive behavioral therapy through the telephone demonstrated a significant benefit in improving sleep, fatigue, and osteoarthritis-associated pain. A cohort study amongst pregnant women in the Parkland Health System in Texas found that audio-only perinatal visits were not associated with changes in perinatal outcomes when compared to in-person visits in a vulnerable population. While these data are encouraging, they are sparse. Measurement of a CPT modifier may streamline the research methods used in these studies. Researchers must continue to investigate the efficacy of specific therapies when delivered via audio-only modalities. While audio-only telehealth solves several problems in health care, there are also several risks such as its potential use for inappropriate clinical indications and the risk that some may see an opportunity to overbill. An audio-only modifier—and therefore a more granular characterization of telehealth modalities—may help assuage concerns about fraud, waste, and abuse, removing existing ambiguity about the impact of different telehealth modalities on outcomes. We also know that the quality and value of these delivery modalities may vary according to the different demographics being served, including factors such as age, insurance status, payer, income, and region, among many others. Such modalities will likely vary between acuity of patient’s indication for care. Only by studying these differences amongst modalities and the populations served, can we ensure that the care delivered is equitable and valuable. Implementing the 93 modifier is a vital step toward enabling health services researchers to urgently pursue research questions that inform evidence-based policy about the best use of audio-only telehealth—especially amongst the Medicaid population. It is also essential to ensuring that the growth of audio-only health care does not create a two-tiered system between private insurance and Medicaid. For example, audio-only care may in fact be lower quality or lower value compared to audiovisual care or in-person care—although, further investigation is necessary to understand these differences. Considering that audio-only care helps remove barriers to care for underresourced patient populations, inappropriate use of audio-only care may further exacerbate the already large inequities in health care—a concern raised by both clinicians and patients. This reliance on audio-only care may also hamstring innovations that can improve the quality and access to audiovisual telehealth or in-person care. Clearly, there are legitimate concerns about the equity of audio-only health. To resolve them, more precise data and extensive investigations are necessary: Both of which will be enabled by the implementation of the CPT 93 modifier. An Opportunity For Action The new audio-only CPT 93 modifier provides meaningful potential benefits to combat barriers to care that were compounded during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new code creates a potent opportunity for conducting rigorous research into audio-only telehealth to inform federal- and state-level policy around equitable telehealth delivery. But to make the most of this opportunity, regulators, payers, providers, and researchers must take steps to increase adoption and evaluation of the audio-only modifier. To catalyze this work, large health systems should consider leading the adoption of the CPT 93 modifier while also encouraging local private providers to do the same. Payers and purchasers should consider requiring modifier submission, a step that would also facilitate further research into the field with minimal additional administrative burden on providers. Federal health agencies have a role as well. For example, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) may increase awareness of the modifiers amongst affiliated researchers or those who use AHRQ databases while the Health Resources and Services Agency may require community health centers they fund to use the new modifier. Authors’ Note The authors would like to thank Dr. John Morgan and Amanda Brodt for their contributions to preparing this paper. Dr. Ostrovsky is an investor in the following companies, some of which provide telehealth services: https://www.socialinnovationventures.com . However, there are no direct conflicts of interest. See original article: https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/new-coding-modifier-offers-opportunity-investigate-audio-only-telehealth#.Y3feKa9vXhA.twitter < Previous News Next News >

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

Academy Health Report Addresses Medicaid Directors Perspective on Telehealth Center for Connected Health Policy May 2021 Views on telehealth since the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) began In March 2021, Academy Health released a report detailing results from an environmental scan and discussions with Medicaid Medical Directors (MMDs) on their views on telehealth since the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) began. MMDs are physicians and clinical leaders in different specialties who advise Medicaid programs on clinical matters. During the pandemic, many have weighed in on telehealth and how it should be deployed in their states Medicaid program. The report breaks down views of Medicaid directors and resulting recommendations into three topic areas: Equity, Quality and Payment. Examples of recommendations made in the equity category include: 1. Medicaid programs should clearly communicate temporary telehealth policies and when those policies will expire. 2. Medicaid programs should support expansion of telehealth for purposes of equitable access if clinically appropriate and makes sense in terms of cost and quality. 3. Medicaid programs should work to reduce barriers to telehealth, including addressing the technology divide, digital literacy and underlying health disparities. For more details and recommendations related to quality and payment, read the full report. < Previous News Next News >

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

A New Model For Healthcare: Adding Telehealth To Unclog Patient Flow ‘Hot Spots’ Dr. Corey Scurlock MD, MBA June 8, 2022 It may not match the scale of the exodus of nurses from the healthcare workforce, but a growing shortage of physicians is no less of a threat to patient care. A recent survey found that one in five doctors plan on leaving the profession in the next two years, hastening a projected shortfall of as many as 124,000 doctors by 2034. This has reached such a concerning level that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy have launched a strategic advisory to mitigate clinical burnout. More Information: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/06/08/a-new-model-for-healthcare-adding-telehealth-to-unclog-patient-flow-hot-spots/?sh=248c6d415725 Covid-19 and longstanding concerns about changes in the business of healthcare have left many physicians burned out. Older doctors are seeking early retirement, and younger doctors seek a more balanced work/life ratio. Many aren’t interested in some of the all-consuming specialties such as critical care, neurology, oncology and psychiatry. As with everything else in our world right now, supply is not meeting demand. Action is required, but it can’t just rely on yesterday’s solutions. Opening up more slots in medical schools won’t fill the immediate need for experienced, board-certified physicians. Buying up physician practices is largely played out, as most doctors are already employed. I would argue that we can’t wait for a new MD pipeline to open up. Instead, we need to fix the broken practice of medicine. Doctors are burned out because they are locked into 15-minute appointment cycles wrapped around the exigencies of electronic health records systems that demand complete documentation of each step, leaving little time for the “How are you, Ms. Jones?” moments. Patients are unhappy with eight-month waits for new patient appointments to confirm diagnoses of serious diseases. Within the hospital, a lack of staff and available expertise meets up with broken processes to choke off patient flow from the emergency department to laboratories to medical floors. Staff personnel stand around waiting for paperwork. Patients wait on gurneys for everything. By the time things are straightened out, the original order might no longer be appropriate for a patient. Discharge alone has become a major headache. One antidote to this is to create a hybrid model of care as I have done with my company and as my business helps other companies do. It relies on points in the care process being actively managed remotely by specialist physicians who also have a background in telehealth. These veterans should understand where timely intervention can unblock patient flow at “hot spots” in a patient’s journey caused by delays in care, inappropriate care transitions or potential patient harm. Telehealth-enabled monitoring can reduce transfers by accurately assessing patient acuity and overseeing the work of less-experienced hospital staff. Through these interactions, the goal is to see reduced patient readmissions and ED visits, shorter hospital stays and better utilization of resources. Of course, all of this begs the question: If the hospital can’t find enough specialists, how can virtual care physicians fill these roles? The answer is pretty simple, in my opinion. You bring back the joy of being a doctor. These telehealth doctors work from home, linked to pods of multi-specialists who work with the same hospitals, getting to know the staff. They can work when they like and as much as they like. They access the medical record but are called upon to solve problems, full stop. You can also make sure their work is always varied. Doctors want to heal, not master the intricacies of Epic’s latest software. With the tailwind of favorable policy and reimbursement the telehealth industry is experiencing right now, it might be an opportune time to consider this type of strategy. But as one explores telehealth as a business venture, it's important to recognize that all such business is still highly regulated, as it is in the field of care delivery. The core components of an end-to-end telehealth solution include people, process and technology. Here are some thoughts on each. • Technology: Audio-video providers have matured significantly, and increasing interoperability has enabled new entrants. Health systems have sought to standardize enterprise platforms versus best-of-breed applications. Clinical analytics tools can be overlaid on the EMR leading to simpler clinical insight gathering. While not mandatory, such systems target quality or performance metrics to support ROI. • Process: Efforts to virtualize care can be disruptive to care delivery. Consider what technology platforms to purchase, KPIs to measure and clinical workflow to create. • People: Delivering telehealth-enabled care will place the highest regulatory burden on an organization. Malpractice, state licensing and credentialing, and HIPAA, to name a few, are considerations that need to be tackled first. Secondly, your attention to provider experience is paramount to ensure a healthy and sustainable workforce to attract talent. As Covid-19 wanes, we are facing unprecedented change in the provisioning of care. New care models will emerge. Telehealth is not the only solution, but it is clear that it will be a primary one. A recent survey (registration required) of health system CEOs by the University of Colorado’s Health Administration Research Consortium put virtual care as the No. 1 strategy for future growth. For those looking for solutions to today’s healthcare challenges, here are three points to remember: • Telehealth is here to stay: It could be the great equalizer for care access and equity. • Patient flow is key: By focusing on the patient journey across the continuum, hot spots can be identified and targeted. • Clinical and operational alignment are needed: People, processes and technology can combine as a force multiplier to return greater value, but only if everyone has agreed on a care road map. As telehealth goes, we are not battling efficacy anymore; we are battling inaction and the cost such inaction creates. I believe unlocking the potential of all our nation's providers can deliver better care everywhere. It's time to imagine what the design of the next-generation, digitally-enabled clinical workforce looks like, and it's all about access and equity in care delivery. < Previous News Next News >

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

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

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

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

Time Out This page isn’t available right now. But we’re working on a fix, ASAP. Try again soon. Go Back

NEWS A collection of relevant articles providing: Telemedicine trends Industry insights Innovation updates Funding developments Legislation tracking Statutory analysis And more... Industry News Q&A: How retail healthcare, telehealth trends could evolve in 2023 Sanjula Jain, senior vice president of market strategy and chief research officer at Trilliant Health, discusses the future of virtual care and how emerging retail players will affect the industry. December 16, 2022 Read More UCHealth slashes code blues up to 70% with telehealth technologies The academic medical center uses tele-sitter and virtual ICU platforms for a program it calls Virtual Deterioration. December 20, 2022 Read More Leveraging Telehealth Platforms to Enhance Provider Workflows, Adoption Implementing a telehealth platform can positively impact provider workflows in numerous ways, including easing administrative burdens, thereby leading to greater provider adoption and satisfaction. December 28, 2022 Read More Telehealth helps stop suicidal ideation for many patients, study finds One person dies from suicide every 11 minutes in the U.S. A new study shows that telemedicine can be used to treat more severe mental illness – contrary to previous thought. December 29, 2022 Read More Telehealth May Be Rural Healthcare’s Lifeline As a new year dawns, it seems like a stock-taking time in U.S. healthcare. Skyrocketing costs, underwater margins, a depleted workforce and sicker patients have most hospitals and systems thinking existential thoughts about 2023, none more so than rural facilities. December 28, 2022 Read More

Time Out This page isn’t available right now. But we’re working on a fix, ASAP. Try again soon. Go Back

New HHS-OIG Reports on Telehealth Challenges and Oversight in State Medicaid Programs Center for Connected Health Policy September 2021 Last week the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) released two new telehealth reports, both related to the use of telehealth to deliver behavioral health services to Medicaid beneficiaries. HHS-OIG breaks up their study into two reports. Last week the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) released two new telehealth reports, both related to the use of telehealth to deliver behavioral health services to Medicaid beneficiaries. HHS-OIG breaks up their study into two reports: *States Reported Multiple Challenges with Using Telehealth to Provide Behavioral Health Services to Medicaid Enrollees (Challenges Report) which focuses on state care delivery issues, and *Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Evaluation and Oversight of Telehealth for Behavioral Health in Medicaid (Evaluation Report), which looks closer at state data collection and evaluation efforts. The reports are both based on surveys HHS-OIG conducted with Medicaid directors from 37 states as well as various stakeholders in early 2020. The surveys were particularly focused around telemental health delivery through managed care organizations, however most stakeholders focused on general telehealth issues in their responses. While the information was gathered pre-pandemic, HHS-OIG applies the findings to support understanding and recommendations to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) around post-pandemic telehealth policy. Key Challenges: Lack of Telehealth Training and Limited Broadband In terms of challenges related to care delivery via telehealth, the number one issue reported by 32 out of 37 surveyed states, was a lack of provider and enrollee training. In HHS-OIG’s interviews, stakeholders described not only provider issues related to use of telehealth technology, but also lack of education around telehealth coverage and reimbursement policies. Lack of internet access came in as the second highest challenge, reported by 31 out of 37 states. Broadband issues raised included not only enrollees having insufficient broadband speeds, but some clinics in rural areas having no broadband access at all. Other challenges provided by state Medicaid programs included: -Concerns around how providers protect patient privacy and personal information. -Lack of interoperability between provider electronic health record systems and how to increase provider sharing of patient information. -The high costs of telehealth infrastructure, such as initial equipment costs as well as maintenance and repair costs. -A lack of licensure reciprocity across states. -A lack of understanding around telehealth consent policies. Citing how CMS has given states broad flexibility in how they structure their telehealth policies, the recommendations from the report to CMS focus on increasing creation and dissemination of additional informational and educational resources, such as best practices amongst states, funding options related to broadband and interoperability, and creating a state plan amendment template that could additionally assist states in covering some ancillary infrastructure costs. Evaluation: Telehealth Data and Oversight Within the Evaluation Report which focused more on data collection and analysis, HHS-OIG found that only 3 out of 37 states are unable to track which services are provided via telehealth, however only 2 out of 37 states have evaluated that data specific to impacts on access to behavioral health services and only one state has evaluated telehealth impacts on cost. The report notes that though other states didn’t directly evaluate telehealth data however, they did provide information on observational telehealth impacts based on their experiences with telehealth. For instance, 17 out of 37 states reported that telehealth increases access to providers and a few states also noted potential cost savings, while 6 out of 37 said the impact of telehealth on cost is largely uncertain. The final focus of the Evaluation report was related to telehealth quality assessments and oversight by Medicaid agencies. While 10 out of 37 states noted concerns around quality, one state mentioned quality as more of a clinical practice issue, and two states believed provider training could address such concerns. In regard to oversight, only 11 states were said to conduct monitoring specific to telehealth, while other states noted they oversee all services the same. HHS-OIG made much stronger and more specific recommendations when it comes to state oversight and evaluation, suggesting the need for additional telehealth specific measures by CMS, states, and managed care organizations. Looking Ahead The HHS-OIG reports highlight many of the broad issues and questions related to telehealth that have become forefront in policymakers’ minds over the past year and half, such as challenges around addressing the digital divide and how to best evaluate telehealth impacts. The recommendations point toward a few different potential post-pandemic pathways for CMS mainly around increasing education and oversight. As we’ve seen confusion grow around what state Medicaid agencies believe CMS allows them to do as permanent telehealth policy, such as around federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), perhaps the most essential recommendation made by HHS-OIG comes back to increasing coordination amongst state Medicaid agencies with CMS. The reports’ limited scope to behavioral health services through managed care organizations is also notable in terms of policy application even though state and stakeholder responses may have been more general. For instance, many states and policymakers seem to be focused around Medicaid fee-for-service policies more so than managed care, as well as reimbursement challenges, such as payment parity and similar fee schedule considerations. In addition, the HHS-OIG study did not break down any differences or feedback by telehealth modality, while many states and stakeholders have been focused on the future of audio-only availability – especially as a way to address the challenge of limited broadband access. In terms of evaluating data, while many states may have not had a data evaluation plan in place at the time of HHS-OIG survey, many now do as a result of recently enacted legislation predicated on the surge of use and attention to telehealth during the pandemic. Therefore, it may be interesting for HHS-OIG to consider conducting a similar more broad survey in a year or two after states have had more time to collect and wrap their heads around the data. Challenges Report: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/OEI-02-19-00400.pdf Evaluation Report: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/OEI-02-19-00401.pdf < Previous News Next News >

State Telehealth Laws and Reimbursement Policies Report, Fall 2021 Center for Connected Health Policy October 2021 Today the Center for Connected Health Policy (CCHP) is releasing its bi-annual summary of state telehealth policy changes for Fall 2021. Our semi-annual report has gone digital Historically, our twice-yearly updates to the “State Telehealth Laws and Reimbursement Policies” report have been published as a PDF document, and included the telehealth policies for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Earlier this year, we transitioned exclusively to our new and improved online Policy Finder. This online database allows the CCHP team to easily update each state’s information whenever there is a change, instead of waiting for the spring and fall to roll out the report. Now, you can look up (or download a PDF) of the most up-to-date information on each state from that state’s page. We hope this transition will result in more timely policy information that is easier for you to navigate and understand. Read the Executive Summary We will continue to produce bi-annual summary reports of the status of telehealth policies across the United States to provide a snapshot of the progress made in the past six months. The information for this summary report covers updates in state telehealth policy made between June and September 2021. DOWNLOAD SUMMARY This report is for informational purposes only, and is not intended as a comprehensive statement of the law on this topic, nor to be relied upon as authoritative. Always consult with counsel or appropriate program administrators. Introduction The Center for Connected Health Policy’s (CCHP) Fall 2021 analysis and summary of telehealth policies is based on its online Policy Finder database tool. It highlights the changes that have taken place in state telehealth policy between the initial release of CCHP’s Policy Finder in Spring 2021, and Fall 2021. The research for this Fall 2021 executive summary was conducted between June and September 2021. This summary offers policymakers, health advocates, and other interested health care professionals an overview of telehealth policy trends throughout the nation. For detailed information by state, see CCHP’s telehealth Policy Finder tool which breaks down policy for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 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 executive 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. DOWNLOAD INFOGRAPH WITH KEY FINDINGS Methodology CCHP examined state law, state administrative codes, and Medicaid provider manuals as the primary resources for the online telehealth policy database tool, from which the findings in this summary are taken. Additionally, other potential sources such as releases from a state’s executive office, Medicaid notices, transmittals or Agency newsletters were also examined for relevant information. In some cases, CCHP directly contacted state Medicaid personnel in order to clarify specific policy issues. Most of the information contained in the database tool specifically focuses on fee-for-service; however, information on managed care plans has also been included if available from the utilized sources. Every effort was made to capture the most recent policy language in each state at the time it was reviewed between the months of June and September 2021. In some cases, after a state was reviewed, they passed a significant piece of legislation. In order to incorporate those significant changes, CCHP conducted a scan for these instances in late September and incorporated language from those enacted bills where appropriate. It should be noted that even if a state has enacted telehealth policies in statute, these policies may not have been incorporated into its Medicaid program. For purposes of this summary, CCHP only counts states as reimbursing for a specific modality or removing a restriction if there is documentation to show that the Medicaid program has implemented a statutory requirement for that policy. Requirements in newly passed legislation will be incorporated into the findings section of future editions of CCHP’s summary report once they are implemented in the Medicaid program, and CCHP has located official documentation confirming this. This survey focused on three primary areas for telehealth policy including Medicaid reimbursement, private payer laws and professional requirements. Within each category, information is organized into various topic and subtopic areas. These topic areas include: Medicaid Reimbursement Definition of the term telemedicine/telehealth Reimbursement for live video Reimbursement for store-and-forward Reimbursement for remote patient monitoring (RPM) Reimbursement for email/phone/fax Consent issues Out-of-state providers Private Payer Laws Definitions Requirements Parity (service and payment) Professional Regulation Definitions Consent Online Prescribing Cross-State Licensing Licensure Compacts Professional Boards Standards Key Findings No two states are alike in how telehealth is defined and regulated. While there are some similarities in language, perhaps indicating states may have utilized existing verbiage from other states, noticeable differences exist. The main areas where changes were made over the past six months fall in the three buckets that CCHP uses to categorize information within its policy finder: Medicaid policy, private payer policy, and regulation of health professionals. Changes were also highly influenced by temporary expansions made during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some states took approaches to extend their pandemic policies multiple years into the future, while others made policies (or portions of their COVID policies) permanent. Still others have not adopted their more lenient COVID policies at all. Connecticut, for example, passed a new temporary law (active until June 30, 2023) which not only requires Medicaid to reimburse for synchronous, asynchronous store-and-forward transfers, remote patient monitoring and audio-only modalities if the provider is in-network, but also places similar requirements on private payers as well. In Medicaid, it was common for states to make slight adjustments to their telehealth policies to add or clarify the services that can be delivered via telehealth, types of professionals that can deliver care through telehealth or the types of settings a patient could be in during a telehealth interaction. For example, Iowa clarified that an intern psychologist can provide telehealth services to Medicaid members. Mississippi clarified federally qualified health centers (FQHC) and rural health clinics (RHC) could be distant site providers, and added the home as an originating site. And, Arkansas now specifies that both the home is an eligible patient site and that group meetings may be performed via telemedicine. Although reimbursement for audio-only telephone has become pretty standard during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), less than half of state Medicaid programs explicitly are reimbursing for the modality permanently, and many that are have placed restrictive parameters around its reimbursement. It was also common for states to make modifications to their telehealth private payer reimbursement law language to alter the definition of telehealth/ telemedicine. This typically included an expansion of the definition to be broader in scope so that it entails more than just live video, although often with some caveats. For example, Arkansas’ private payer law now stipulates that telemedicine does not include audio-only communication, unless the audio-only communication is real-time, interactive, and substantially meets the requirements for a healthcare service that would otherwise be covered by the health benefit plan. Iowa revised their law to include ‘real-time interactive electronic media’, but still excludes audio-only telephone from the definition of telehealth. Requirements around payment parity were also a common change, with eight states passing a law requiring the reimbursement amount is the same whether a service is provided via telehealth or in-person since Spring 2021. Illinois, for example, now requires reimbursement parity for in-network or tiered network health care professionals or facilities, including services provided via audio-only. Iowa is another example of a state requiring reimbursement of covered services is made on the same basis and same rate as in-person mental health services. Finally, there is a noticeable shift in telehealth policy towards tightening of professional requirements around the use of telehealth by providers. For example, Michigan passed new consent requirements for social work, athletic trainers, massage therapists, acupuncturists and veterinary medicine. Texas is another state that added practice standards (including a consent requirement and prescribing rules) for teledentistry specifically. West Virginia adopted emergency telehealth practice standard regulations to implement a previous law that passed (W. VA Code 30-1-26(b)) for five professions, including dentistry, nursing, osteopathic medicine, social work and medicine. While many states have had these types of standards for several years, the rate at which new telehealth standards are being adopted has increased significantly within the last six months. Additional findings include: Fifty states and Washington DC provide reimbursement for some form of live video in Medicaid fee-for-service. Twenty-two state Medicaid programs reimburse for store-and-forward. However, three states (NC, OH, VT) solely reimburse store-and-forward as a part of CTBS, which is limited to specific codes and reimbursement amounts. Michigan is the only state to add reimbursement for store-and-forward since Spring 2021. Additionally, three jurisdictions (MS, NH, and NJ) have laws requiring Medicaid reimburse for store-and-forward but as of the creation of this edition, don’t have any official Medicaid policy indicating this is occurring. Twenty-nine state Medicaid programs provide reimbursement for RPM. States that added RPM since Spring 2021 included Washington, Michigan and California. As is the case for store-and-forward, three Medicaid programs (NH, HI and NJ) have laws requiring Medicaid reimburse for RPM but at the time this report was written, did not have any official Medicaid policy. Additionally, two of the states (OH and CA) only reimburse the remote physiologic monitoring codes CMS does. Twenty-two states reimburse for audio-only telephone in some capacity (often limitations apply); however, Michigan only reimburses for it when used for provider to- provider electronic consultations. Eleven state Medicaid programs including Arizona, California, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, reimburse for all four modalities, although certain limitations apply. 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. Below are summarized key findings in each category area contained in the Policy Finder as of September 2021. Read more: https://www.cchpca.org/resources/state-telehealth-laws-and-reimbursement-policies-report-fall-2021/ < 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 >

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 >

The Center for Connected Health Policy (CCHP) released its bi-annual summary of state telehealth policy changes for Spring 2022 Center for Connected Health Policy Spring 2022 The Center for Connected Health Policy’s (CCHP) Spring 2022 analysis and summary of telehealth policies is based on its online Policy Finder. It highlights the changes that have taken place in state telehealth policy between the Fall 2021 Summary Report, and Spring 2022. The research for this Spring 2022 executive summary was conducted between January and April 2022. This summary offers policymakers, health advocates, and other interested health care professionals 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 and the District of Columbia. The Center for Connected Health Policy (CCHP) is releasing its Spring 2022 Summary Report of the state telehealth laws and Medicaid program policies catalogued in CCHP’s online Policy Finder tool. Prior to Spring 2021, this same information was released at least twice a year in the form of a 500+ page PDF report titled, “the State Telehealth Laws and Reimbursement Report” since 2012. With the transition to the online Policy Finder, users are able to navigate each state’s updated information as soon as CCHP makes it available. Additionally, the information from the online tool can be exported for each state into a PDF document using the most current information available on CCHP’s website. CCHP plans to continue to produce these bi-annual summary reports of the status of telehealth policies across the United States 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 January and mid-April 2022. For full report: https://www.cchpca.org/2022/05/Spring2022_ExecutiveSummaryfinal.pdf < Previous News Next News >

CONNECT for Health Act Recently Reintroduced Center for Connected Health Policy May 2021 CCHP Breaks Down Key Elements in New Fact Sheet * < Previous News Next News >

2021 National Telemedicine Summit World Conference Forum, LLC Sept. 13, 2021 Key Strategies to Revolutionize & Transform Healthcare Delivery, Optimize Quality Patient Care & Outcomes, Increase Accessibility, Enhance Data Analytics, and Reduce Costs! September 13 – 14, 2021 • The Ritz-Carlton, South Beach • Miami, FL Today, telemedicine is one of the fastest growing sectors in healthcare. Specifically, COVID-19 has enhanced and accelerated the role that telemedicine plays within our healthcare system. It is reshaping the landscape of healthcare delivery in the United States, and is being recognized as the future of global healthcare. Telehealth addresses and achieves the basic tenants of Healthcare Reform: providing the population with access to improved and convenient, high quality patient centric care, enhancing outcomes, while reducing per capita expenditures. Today, more than 70 percent of hospitals throughout the United States are engaged in telehealth programs. Studies have shown that the benefits of telehealth include significantly improved outcomes, efficient care delivery as well as reduction in mortality rates, hospitalizations, length of stay, readmissions and healthcare costs. Telehealth has greatly enhanced access to quality care in rural areas and patient satisfaction has increased due to its convenience and patient centric approach. We have created an exciting, high level forum featuring knowledgeable leaders and executives from the nation's leading Hospitals and Health Systems who will share their perspectives, valuable insights and expertise on how to be best equipped for the rapidly evolving and exciting landscape of telehealth. This exclusive event targets senior level executives in order to maximize educational and networking opportunities. By attending the 2021 National Telemedicine Summit, you will learn what highly regarded Hospitals and Health Systems are doing to be prepared for the challenges that lie ahead in 2021 and beyond! We look forward to greeting you in Miami! Link: https://www.wcforum.com/conferences/telemedicine < Previous News Next News >

Epic research shows telehealth efficacy, makes case for more reimbursement Andrea Fox December 15, 2022 The study of 35 million telehealth visits found that most patients did not require in-person visits within 90 days of online appointments, indicating virtual visits as an effective "alternative, rather than duplicative" care modality. A dual team study of in-person, same-specialty follow-up rates after telehealth appointments published by Epic Research examined the cadence of care and found virtual medicine to be an effective tool. WHY IT MATTERS Analyzing the effectiveness of different methods for delivering care is important to guide decisions about how to allocate resources, according to the study's key findings report. To determine which specialties were able to fulfill patient needs using telehealth and which required in-person follow-up visits more often, two teams of researchers examined more than 35 million telehealth visits conducted between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2022. What they found, according to the report, is that high in-person follow-up rates within three months were present only in specialties that require regular hands-on care, such as obstetrics and surgery. Follow-up visits within 90 days of telehealth appointments were not, by and large, instances of duplicative care, but a method of care delivery that can increase healthcare access, the researchers say. "Healthcare providers should continue to educate policymakers and administrators on the function telehealth plays as an alternative, rather than duplicative, encounter," they said in the report, adding that payers should extend telehealth visit coverage. The researchers also found that genetics and nutrition are the specialties that made the most efficient use of telemedicine. And while 15% of mental healthcare and psychiatry telehealth appointments required in-person follow-up in the next three months, that specialty had the largest volume of all studied for telehealth utilization. Of the more than 4.3 million telehealth visits during the study period, nearly 3.7 million mental health and psychiatry telehealth visits did not require in-person follow-up. THE LARGER TREND While telehealth use increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, one study of 40.7 million adults found telehealth comparable for chronic conditions. However, some experts quickly found telemedicine well-suited for use in behavioral health after the onset of the pandemic. Also, the COVID-19 public health emergency eliminated the requirement to have an in-person visit with a patient before prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD). While an end to the PHE would signal a return to the in-person visit requirement for OUD prescriptions, several healthcare organizations have urged the U.S. Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Agency to revise telehealth controlled substance rules. In rural areas, telehealth has increased access to care, including the ability to treat OUD with MAT. "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," Dr. Maroof Ahmed, co-founder of Quit Genius, told Healthcare IT News by email in October. ON THE RECORD "These findings suggest that, for many specialties, telehealth visits are typically an efficient use of resources and are unlikely to require in-person follow-up care," according to the researchers' key findings report. 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/epic-research-shows-telehealth-efficacy-makes-case-more-reimbursement < Previous News Next News >