NMTHA Sponsors NMTHA Sponsors support our efforts in exchange for promotional benefits: Sponsorship Available to members and non-members All Sponsor benefits included Does not include member benefits Membership is not required for sponsorship Better Access. Better Outcomes. More about AmplifyMD AmplifyMD is a multi-specialty physician practice providing virtual consults via telehealth. Our doctors cover all E & M specialties, including; Psychiatry, Cardiology, Neurology, Infectious Disease, Orthopedics, Hematology, Oncology, etc. At AmplifyMD, we’ve streamlined workflows so you can manage everything from one screen. By centralizing all your virtual care delivery onto a single turnkey platform, we’ve alleviated the cost, time, and frustration burden of setting up and managing multiple hospitals and telehealth systems. More about ENVIVE ENVIVE Solutions, LLC is a nationally certified women-owned business located in the enchanted southwest. We provide quality remote and onsite strategic management, project planning, coaching and consultation, and implementation support services to organizations across the United States - with expertise in large-scale collaborations and human-centered initiatives (e.g., behavioral health, human services). We lead and support teams and projects through all phases of strategic management - from conceptualization to successful implementation. For Members and Non-Members NMTHA Sponsors (Membership not required) $2,500 $ 2,500 (Member benefits not included. Membership is available separately.) Valid for one year Select Tax-deductible sponsorship is donation to 501c3 organization Organization featured on NMTHA's dedicated Sponsor webpage Webinar presentation to NMTHA Board of Directors Poster presentation at NMTHA's Annual Town Hall 1-page contract with defined mutual expectations

Southwest Telehealth News

Membership Benefits COMING SOON: NEW MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS Thank you for your interest in joining the New Mexico Telehealth Alliance. The newly formed Membership Co mmittee and the NMTHA Board of Directors are revising the Membership section of this website. If you have any questions please contact us HERE .

Audio-Only Telemedicine Services Special Announcement NMTHA's communication with the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance about billing for AUDIO-ONLY telemedicine services February 2022 Update: New Mexico Audio-Only Telemedicine Services The New Mexico Telehealth Alliance (NMTHA) works hard to ensure telehealth is sustainable and meets healthcare needs in our State. The NMTHA has been instrumental in ensuring New Mexico has one of the leading telehealth laws in the country. Looking at the NM Telehealth Act, last amended in 2019, the New Mexico Office of Superintendent of Insurance (OSI) has put out the following information around the continued ability to bill for telephonic services. What you need to know: The telemedicine definition allows the use of audio-only telemedicine services. The NM Telehealth Act: The New Mexico Telehealth Act, which was last amended in 2007, defines telehealth as “the use of electronic information, imaging and communication technologies, including interactive audio, video, data communications as well as store-and-forward technologies, to provide and support health care delivery, diagnosis, consultation, treatment, transfer of medical data and education.” § 24-25-3(C) NMSA. This definition clearly incorporates audio-only services, particularly as “the purpose of the New Mexico Telehealth Act is to provide a framework for health care providers to follow in providing telehealth services to New Mexico citizens in a manner that provides efficient and effective access to quality health services.” § 24-25-2(B) NMSA. What insurance this affects: This is only for fully-insured health plans regulated by the NM OSI, and for NM State employee, public school, and retiree health plans. It does not apply to Medicaid, Medicare, other federal health plans, or self-insured health plans. Access the final text of S.B.354 (2019) and chaptered statutes HERE . See the email communication from the NM OSI HERE . Sincerely, New Mexico Telehealth Alliance

The challenges of telemental health, and how they can be overcome Bill Siwicki June 14, 2022 Mental healthcare may be among the more intuitive specialties to deliver via telemedicine – but privacy demands, technology difficulties and the need for safe places deter some from taking advantage. Of all the medical specialties impacted by telemedicine during the course of the pandemic, perhaps the one with the most wholesale and lasting effects is behavioral and mental health. Mental health appointments do not typically involve any collection of vitals or specimens, nor do they absolutely require a face-to-face meeting, although therapists can observe physical cues from the whole body in person. Just talking via video, or even just audio, is enough. We talked with Dr. Janice Johnston, chief medical officer and cofounder of Redirect Health, a telehealth technology and services company, to get her expert observations regarding: The biggest ways telehealth is changing America's treatment of mental health. What impact increased telehealth accessibility has had on mental health treatment. The challenges telehealth presents in treating mental health. The improvements that can be made to telehealth for the treatment of mental health. Q. What are the biggest ways telehealth is changing the U.S.'s treatment of mental health issues? A. Before COVID-19 and historically in the U.S., there has been a negative stigma around receiving mental healthcare. While there have been a lot of movements and campaigns attempting to try and stamp out the stigma, many people have been deterred from seeking professional help due to a lack of coverage in healthcare plans, high copays and fear. As telehealth widens, the availability of mental health services continues to grow and is more accessible than ever. Gone are the days of driving to appointments and sitting in a waiting room, with the feeling that all eyes are on you. Social networks also have created a platform for mental health activists and we are seeing, in real time, an increase in people looking for treatment or routine mental care. COVID-19 accelerated the need for more access and new ways of treating mental health, such as telehealth. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also have seen many major insurance companies offer permanent or temporary plan benefits that include mental health services. Telehealth has made it easier for insurers to include these benefits in their plans with less out-of-pocket costs for patients. In many cases, insurance providers even waived the entire cost for visits when using telehealth. While most people don't want to be thought of or treated differently because they choose to seek mental health treatment, the stigma around it can make them feel judged, and they avoid choosing care. Telehealth has made it possible for people to now access care from the privacy of their homes, making the decision to seek care much easier and more comfortable. Being able to speak with a mental health professional from home has provided patients the ability to choose a setting that provides the most comfort, making the process of opening up and sharing concerns with a new person much easier. Q. What impact has increased telehealth accessibility had on mental health treatment in the U.S.? A. The COVID-19 pandemic forced changes for Americans across the country that have affected mental wellbeing, such as working from home, quarantine enforcements, lack of spending time with friends and family, and feeling isolated. This led to a surge in mental health issues with most non-emergency medical treatments shut down due to safety concerns and quarantine enforcements. Telehealth was a necessity we didn't see coming, and the pandemic accelerated this service due to the timely needs that were arising. With the higher demand for mental healthcare, telehealth has been the answer for many. People living in rural communities or underserved areas, specifically, experience limited access to specialty healthcare services, especially mental health. One of the key impacts of increased telehealth accessibility is that these communities have been able to turn to telehealth as an option when they may not have had an alternative. Different from rural or underserved communities, many urban populations see that finding in-person care isn't the difficult part, but affording it and getting to their appointment can be. Another key impact of increased accessibility is that telehealth tends to be a much more cost-effective option, as in-person care can regularly be more than double the cost. Think of all the money and time wasted having to take off work, which can result in lost wages, needing to hire a babysitter, or paying for gas when commuting to and from appointments. With telehealth, patients are able to afford their scheduled appointment at a time that is convenient and works for them. Additionally, while most offices provide services in standard office hours, many telemental health services provide care before and after work hours as well, so patients have more scheduling flexibility. There also are a lot of cultural barriers and health inequities that many minority communities experience that may deter them from seeking mental healthcare. During the pandemic, these communities experienced a rise in telemental health usage. While there are several reasons why this rise has occurred, we have seen that telehealth has been able to combat some of the barriers these groups have had to overcome. For one, telehealth affordability has made services much more accessible to minority groups or lower income individuals, enabling them to include mental healthcare into their budgets. Additionally, minority groups have experienced higher rates of depression and anxiety, only exacerbated by the pandemic, so the demand from these communities, along with the decrease in negative stigma around mental care through telehealth, has driven them to these options. Lastly, telehealth allows those with language barriers in the U.S. to have access to a broader group of mental health professionals who can provide a better understanding of their cultural backgrounds, partnered with the ability to speak in their preferred language. Q. What are some of the challenges telehealth presents in treating mental health issues, and instances when in-person care must be sought? A. While telehealth has expanded access to mental healthcare for so many across the country, there are still limitations that may lead some to favor in-person care. First, privacy. While many patients prefer telehealth so they can have their appointment in the privacy of their homes, there are situations where people may not have that same privacy in their home. Some people may live in multi-generational homes where others are home and in earshot, or they could share a room with others with privacy not immediately available. This may leave patients taking their calls from their car, which is not always comfortable or preferred. As a result, people in these settings may prefer care in person. Second, safe places. While some people prefer their care virtual for a variety of reasons, others feel that virtual mental healthcare is cold and distant, and favor in-person care in order to feel more engaged with their mental health provider. Sometimes being removed from their normal home setting can help create a safe place for the patient to discuss their mental health concerns. This is especially a factor with live support groups, which can be more engaging and easier in person than virtually. Many times, live support groups are used for people looking to overcoming addictions, and being able to separate them from their traditional setting can be helpful for pulling them out of their environment, even momentarily. And third, technology. Some individuals may not understand the technology behind apps or websites that provide mental health services. They may not know how to access video links or use their phone to connect to a provider, which could result in a sub-par session, where they do not feel comfortable or at ease. Patients also do not want to see time consumed or wasted during their appointment because of technical struggles and may prefer to see their providers in person to avoid the hassle of these situations. Q. What improvements can be made to telehealth specifically for the treatment of mental health issues? A. We can look to the current challenges of the telehealth space to find where to start with improving the telehealth experience for everyone. For starters, creating wider access to the internet allows telehealth to reach more people who may not have any options available to them today. In fact, the Biden administration recently secured commitments from 20 leading internet service providers to either reduce prices or increase speeds to serve low-income households. This is a great step in the right direction. Better cellular and internet speeds allow for more telemental health experiences to be held over video, and not telephonically, where mental health professionals can better assess their patient through both verbal and nonverbal cues. With all the advancements and changes we have seen in technology in just the last few decades, there is a lot for patients and providers to keep up with. Education is key to making sure telehealth sticks around and continues to rise in its availability. Many providers are willing to learn new technology, but need to be trained by the people that thoroughly understand the ins and outs of these systems. As new standards of care are set by technological advancements, providers and patients alike need to be provided the education to keep up with these evolving standards. It is important for those implementing new systems to deliver the proper education providers need to learn the technology, as well as assist their patients. Another thing to consider is how to assist patients with disabilities through telehealth. There are laws in place in the U.S. to ensure equality in care for those with and without disabilities, and therefore considerations need to be made in telehealth situations as well, such as providing additional instructions or scheduling longer appointment times. Sometimes added support or modifications need to be made to technology systems in order to support these patients as well. Telehealth systems should meet accessibility requirements and should provide resources that are available in multiple formats, like audio recordings or large text sizes. Twitter: @SiwickiHealthIT Email the writer: bsiwicki@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication. For more information: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/challenges-telemental-health-and-how-they-can-be-improved < Previous News Next News >

Healthcare Connect Fund The FCC's newest component of the Rural Health Care (RHC) program: Funding may significantly improve access for patients and service providers. Participants may receive a subsidy of up to 65%. Funding recipients must provide 35% cash match. The New Mexico Telehealth Alliance (NMTHA) manages the Southwest Telehealth Access Grid (SWTAG), a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved consortium for funding through the Healthcare Connect Fund (HCF). If you manage one or more healthcare provider sites serving clients in New Mexico, contact NMTHA to discuss joining SWTAG. Advantages to applying to SWTAG via NMTHA include: Lower application and administrative costs .* Access to expert funding advice for a mix of rural and urban sites. Professional assistance with proven track record of funding success . ELIGIBILITY Eligible healthcare sites must meet all three following criteria: Non-profit or public entity In a rural area (as defined by the FCC: Eligible Rural Areas Search Tool Designated type of facility: Post-secondary educational institution offering health care instruction (e.g., teaching hospital, medical school) Community health center or health center providing services to migrants Dedicated emergency department of a rural for-profit hospital Local health department or agency Community mental health center Not-for-profit hospital Skilled nursing facility Rural health clinic Part-time eligible entity located in an ineligible facility *NMTHA contracts with Prairie Health Ventures to manage the application process and other bureaucratic aspects of the HCF. SWTAG members span over 200 sites in several States including many rural and urban facilities in New Mexico. SWTAG members have secured millions of HCF funding dollars to date. Current funding requests are under development. Universal Service Administrative Company ( USAC) Funding "Lingo" Form 460: Confirms Eligibility Step 1: Determine Eligibility of Your Site Form 461: Request for Services Step 2: Develop Bid Evaluation Criteria & Select Services Form 462: Funding Request Step 4: Submit Funding Requests Form 463: Invoice USAC for Release of Funds Step 6: Invoice USAC Evergreen Contract: Evergreen Contracts Funding Request Number (FRN) Funding Commitment Letter (FCL) Health Care Provider (HCP) Network Cost Worksheet (NCW) F or additional information about the Healthcare Connect Fund, please consult the following resources: HCF web page Related FAQs FCC orders

CCHP Releases Updated Telehealth Billing Guide Center for Connected Health Policy March 16, 2021 The Center for Connected Health Policy (CCHP) has released a new updated telehealth billing guide as a follow up to its 2020 billing guide to provide a helpful tool for healthcare entities trying to navigate the complexities of billing for telehealth and virtually delivered services. The Center for Connected Health Policy (CCHP) has released a new updated telehealth billing guide as a follow up to its 2020 billing guide to provide a helpful tool for healthcare entities trying to navigate the complexities of billing for telehealth and virtually delivered services. Policy changes during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) have only made telehealth billing rules more nuanced. The updated billing guide addresses whether or not there is reimbursement for telehealth both generally and/or during the PHE, as well as how to correctly bill for a telehealth encounter, which is one of the most common policy questions CCHP receives as the National Telehealth Policy Resource Center (NTRC – P). Further complicating the billing process is the need to understand whether current rules are only applicable during the pandemic as well as the fact that payer policies continue to vary from payer to payer. For example, policies that apply to a Medicare beneficiary remain different than those that apply to a state Medicaid enrollee or to patients that have private insurance. DOwnload the guide here: https://www.cchpca.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/2021BillingGuideFINAL.pdf Please note, this resource is only provided as a guide and should not be considered legal advice. < Previous News Next News >

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

2022 Proposed Physician Fee Schedule Center for Connected Health Policy July 2021 ...I want my MTV (Mental Telehealth Visits)! On July 13, 2021, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released their proposed CY 2022 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS). The PFS is historically where CMS will make administrative changes to telehealth policy in the Medicare program. As the pandemic begins to stabilize and restrictions begin to lift, there has been great concern as to what will happen with the temporary telehealth changes on the federal level. The CY 2022 proposed PFS is one step towards addressing those questions. Telehealth Services & Communications Technology Based Services (CTBS) The PFS is traditionally where CMS will add additional telehealth services to the eligible telehealth services list for Medicare. No new services were added in the CY 2022 proposal. Instead, CMS made permanent adoption of G2252, virtual check-in service of 11-20 minutes, which was introduced in last year’s PFS and noted that the temporary services they had placed in Category 3, also in last year’s PFS, will remain active until the end of CY 2023 and not the end of the year that the public health emergency (PHE) is declared over. Mental Health & Audio-Only The most significant proposals involve the provision of mental health services via telehealth and utilization of audio-only to deliver those services. In December 2020, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) which included a change to federal telehealth policy. That change allowed for the provision of mental health services in the home and without the geographic limitation, if the patient had an in-person visit with the telehealth provider within six months prior to the telehealth service taking place. CMS is implementing that policy and outlined details in the PFS noting that the in-person visit would need to have taken place before each telehealth encounter. Therefore, if you had an in-person visit with your telehealth provider a month before you received services via telehealth, that visit would qualify. But if you wanted a follow-up visit eight months later via telehealth, you would need to have another in-person visit with that provider. Additionally, CMS stated that because of the likelihood that mental health services provided via technology will continue post-pandemic, the concern about cutting off people who receive such services, and the efficacy of utilizing audio-only to provide mental health services, the agency is revisiting its stance on how it defines “interactive telecommunications system.” In federal statute, telehealth is provided through a “telecommunications system.” There is no federal definition for “telecommunications system.” In regulations, CMS added the word “interactive” before “telecommunications system.” CCHP has always maintained and provided comments to CMS over the years that given the lack of a federal statutory definition for “telecommunication system,” it is within CMS’ power to change the definition to be more expansive. In comments to last year’s PFS and at the end of the year when the public was solicited for comments regarding the temporary waivers, CCHP reiterated this position. In their response to comments in last year’s PFS, CMS noted that they “continue to believe that our longstanding regulatory definition of “telecommunications system” reflected the intent of statute and that the term should continue to be defined as including two way, real-time, audio/video communications technology.” In the proposed CY 2022 PFS, CMS has reassessed their position. Based on data from COVID-19 and other factors, CMS is proposing to allow the use of audio-only to provide mental health services in the Medicare program if: It is for an established patient; The originating site is the patient’s home; The provider has the technical capability to use live video but, The patient cannot or does not want to use live video and There must be an in-person visit within six months of the telehealth service. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)/Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) CCHP has maintained that additional flexibilities may be given to FQHCs and RHCs without Congressional action by redefining what constitutes as a “visit” for these entities. CMS is proposing to expand the definition of a “mental health visit” for FQHCs and RHCs by including that definition mental health services provided through “interactive, real-time telecommunications technology” including audio-only. For the latter, the patient must not be capable or not consent to the use of live video. Additionally, the rate paid to FQHCs and RHCs will be their prospective payment system (PPS) rate or all-inclusive rate (AIR). It should be noted that FQHCs and RHCs will still be not be considered distant providers providing telehealth services. This is a definition change to what constitutes a “mental health visit” for these entities. Therefore, that would also mean that the statutory limitations on the use of telehealth, such as geographic limits, would presumably not apply if CMS is not viewing this as “telehealth” but simply as a visit for these entities. Other items were proposed in the CY 2022 PFS. To read about those proposals and a more in-depth look at the aforementioned ones, download CCHP’s fact sheet (below). Public comments on the PFS are due September 13, 2021. CCHP’s fact sheet - https://www.cchpca.org/2021/07/Proposed-CY-2022-Physician-Fee-Schedulefinal.pdf < 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

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 >

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 >

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 >

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 >

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 >