Search this site

Amazon rolls out its telehealth service nationwide Annie Palmer, Bertha Coombs February 8, 2022 Amazon is launching its telehealth program, known as Amazon Care, nationwide and has signed up a handful of new companies to use its services. Amazon is rolling out its telehealth service, known as Amazon Care, nationwide, the company announced Tuesday. Amazon Care launched in 2019 as a pilot program for employees in and around the company's Seattle headquarters. The program provides virtual-care visits, as well as free telehealth consultations and in-home visits for a fee from nurses for testing and vaccinations. It has since expanded into more of a primary care service. To read this full article: https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/08/amazon-care-telehealth-service-launches-nationwide.html < Previous News Next News >

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

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final CY 2022 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) policies for Medicare last week. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Nov. 10, 2021 CY 2022 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) policies for Medicare The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final CY 2022 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) policies for Medicare last week. Unless otherwise noted, the policies will take effect on January 1, 2022. Much of the proposals published in July 2021 for public commentary remain intact, but CMS did make several modifications and clarifications. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-23972.pdf < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth's ‘great opportunity’ at community health centers Emily Olsen June 14, 2022 Ray Lowe, senior vice president and CIO at AltaMed Health Services, discusses his organization's move to virtual care at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and how such care can evolve. See original video: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/video/telehealths-great-opportunity-community-health-centers < Previous News Next News >

Are Amazon, Walmart, CVS & Dollar Store Taking Over Healthcare? Dr. Maheu, Telehealth.org August 2021 Amazon, Walmart, CVS, and Dollar General are making notable strides toward increasing their healthcare footprints, positioning themselves to create a seismic shift in healthcare. Telehealth.org has been reporting such efforts for the last several years, and this week offers you an update on the latest developments on amazon care, Walmart care clinic, CVS health, and Dollar General. Amazon Care Introduced in 2019, Amazon Care launched a pilot study for employees in Seattle, quickly followed by an expansion into Washington State. Amazon Care is now expanding nationwide. In addition to developing connections with other companies, the service appears most focused on expanding into underserved rural areas. The pivotal issue to consider as Amazon grows its healthcare footprint is that Amazon currently dominates two digital areas lacking in the industry: optimizing the delivery of digital customer experiences and excelling at the automation of services. Walmart Care Clinic In 2019, Walmart announced the first of its many health centers, called Walmart Care Clinic, with these offerings: primary care, labs, X-ray and EKG, counseling, dental, optical, hearing, community health (nutritional services, fitness), and health insurance education as well as enrollment, in a growing number of their facilities. Walmart has since been keeping itself involved in telehealth developments through mergers and acquisitions. Walmart, the largest in-person retail company in the United States, recently purchased MeMD, described as an “on-demand, multispecialty telehealth provider.” As a complementary addition to the already existing Walmart health centers, MeMD will enable Walmart to provide digital behavioral, primary, and urgent care services. Walmart has also begun a collaboration with Ro, a pharmacy services telehealth app. The relationship will also Ro to sell its health and wellness products in Walmart locations while further increasing Walmart’s digital service offerings. CVS Health Although CVS and Walmart had previously worked together to deliver care through Walmart’s pharmacies, CVS Health announced in January 2019 that Walmart opted to leave the CVS Caremark pharmacy benefit management commercial and Managed Medicaid retail pharmacy networks. That same year, CVS purchased Aetna for $69 billion in cash and stock. The merger brought one of the largest providers of pharmacy services together with the third-largest US-based health insurer. The successful merger formed a healthcare giant with more than $245 billion in annual revenue. Since then, CVS Health has steadily grown its healthcare footprint and, just last week launched a new health care benefit called Aetna Virtual Primary Care. The announcement reads: Offered through the CVS Health Aetna medical insurance subsidiary, Aetna Virtual Primary Care offers members access to a diverse panel of board-certified physicians and coordinated care from a consistent team of specialists based on their health needs. Members will have a continuous relationship with a virtual care physician, beginning from their first 30-45 minute comprehensive primary care visit and extending to every visit thereafter. Existing Aetna virtual care offerings include mental health counseling, dermatology services, and 24/7 urgent care. Dan Finke, executive VP, CVS Health, and President, Aetna, explained, “The future of digital health solutions is rapidly unfolding.” He added, “Aetna Virtual Primary Care is a first-of-its-kind health care solution that provides a simple, affordable, convenient way for eligible members to receive quality primary care from a physician-led care team that knows them and is accessible from virtually anywhere.” As described in his profile, Mr. Finke “is passionate about addressing mental health stigma. He is also deeply committed to attaining health equity for all Americans by engaging public and private stakeholders to address social determinants of health through analytics-based approaches that offer new insight and opportunities into health care disparities.” Dollar General Dollar General is a smaller company, but it has an enviable foothold in rural America. Their stores are well known and trusted. Therefore, they can offer care to patients who live in areas where primary care, behavioral and other specialists are difficult to access. While analysts doubt that Dollar General would follow Walmart’s lead and build primary-care clinics, telehealth solutions are easily within their reach. Dollar General differs from Amazon due to limited floor space, small parking lots, leased rather than owned retail space, and a lack of infrastructure for filling prescriptions. However, these limited abilities did not prevent Dollar General from serving as a site for COVID-19 testing in some states. Dollar General has already partnered with Higi, a blood-pressure machine company that can be seen in some Dollar general stores. Babylon Health is a telehealth provider that has invested in Higi. Given its rural presence, Dollar General may be positioning itself for acquisition by one of the larger publicly traded telehealth companies. In July 2021, the company issued a press released stating: With 75% of the U.S. population living within approximately five miles of one of Dollar General’s 17,000+ stores, the Company recognizes the unique access it provides to rural communities often underserved by other retailers as well as the existing healthcare ecosystem. The Company’s commitment to expanding its health offerings is underpinned by its existing infrastructure, robust supply chain, and current complementary health and nutrition assortment. < Previous News Next News >

A Decade of Telehealth Policy: A New Report From CCHP Mei Kwong- Center for Connected Health Policy August 2022 Ten years ago, in the early months of 2012, the Center for Connected Health Policy (CCHP) faced a decision of potentially great significance. The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORPH) Office for the Advancement of Telehealth (OAT) had released a Funding Opportunity Announcement for their Telehealth Resource Center Grant Program and the incumbent contractor for the National Telehealth Resource Center for Policy (NTRC-P) contract would not be reapplying. After weighing the pros and cons of acting as the NTRC-P, CCHP decided to take the plunge and applied. On September 1, 2012, CCHP officially started its work as the federally designated National Telehealth Policy Resource Center and have been serving that role for the past decade. To mark CCHP’s ten-year anniversary as the NTRC-P, we are releasing a look back on telehealth policy in the United States. For the past decade, CCHP has tracked and followed policy development for all 51 jurisdictions in the United States (District of Columbia included) as well as at the federal level providing us with the unique opportunity to observe and study the development of telehealth policy in the United States on both the state and federal levels. This past decade also happens to be the period that encompasses some of the most significant telehealth policy developments seen thus far in the United States. The report is not intended to be an in-depth study on telehealth policy development and history as that could easily be an entire novel given the complexities and nuances that would need to be considered. The National Telehealth Resource Center for Policy Ten-Year Anniversary Report is intended to capture some of the highlights, significant changes, and environmental factors that have had an impact on telehealth policy development in the nation. Considering the increased interest in telehealth policy, CCHP believes this report also will be useful to provide context on how telehealth policy came to be where it is today, particularly for those who may be newer to the field. Additionally, the report is meant to be a celebration of the time CCHP has spent as the NTRC-P including the contributions the organization has made to the telehealth field. This report is dedicated to the memory of Mario Gutierrez, CCHP Executive Director from 2011-2017. Mario was the original visionary who decided in 2012 that CCHP should apply for the project. A special thank you must also be extended to CCHP staff, both past and present, who have truly been the engine that continues to drive the work of the organization forward. Special acknowledgment must be made of Laura Stanworth, Deputy Director, and Christine Calouro, Senior Policy Associate, both who have been with CCHP from the beginning of its role as the NTRC-P and who, along with myself, have seen this past decade of telehealth policy development, including producing all information and navigating CCHP through those first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We hope you will enjoy this report and find the information useful. CCHP looks forward to continuing on the ever evolving telehealth policy journey with all of you. See full report: https://mailchi.mp/cchpca/a-decade-of-telehealth-policy-our-10-year-anniversary-report < Previous News Next News >

Endocrine Society Provides Guidance for Appropriate Use of Telehealth Mark Melchionna October 07, 2022 The Endocrine Society published a policy perspective covering various factors, such as clinical and patient factors, which could help determine subjective care needs and whether telehealth use is appropriate. October 07, 2022 - Aiming to enhance personalized care, the Endocrine Society created a policy perspective containing five aspects of care that can help clinicians decide when using telehealth is appropriate. With 18,000 members spread across 122 countries, the Endocrine Society is focused on promoting efforts to treat all hormone-related conditions, including diabetes, obesity, and hormone-related cancers. Amid the rapid growth of telehealth that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare stakeholders anticipate that telehealth will continue to pave its way into various aspects of clinical care. Published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, the Endocrine Society policy perspective describes five aspects of care that can assist the process of determining when telehealth is appropriate. “Clinicians will need to draw upon their own knowledge of each patient and their clinical goals to decide when to incorporate telehealth into their care,” said the policy perspective's first author Varsha G. Vimalananda, MD, a physician-scientist at the VA Bedford Healthcare System and an associate professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, in a press release. “Telehealth visits can be considered as an option each time we schedule an appointment. Patient preference should be elicited, and decisions guided by weighing the factors we describe in the perspective piece.” The five aspects of care to be considered when deciding whether telehealth is appropriate for a patient are clinical factors including whether an in-person exam is necessary, patient factors such as access to transportation and comfort level with technology, the patient-clinician relationship, the physical surroundings of the clinician, and the availability of infrastructure needed for telehealth visits. Telehealth is playing an increasingly valuable role in a personalized healthcare, but physicians and patients need to discuss how it fits into the care plan they are deciding on, according to the policy perspective. "Moving forward, endocrine care is likely to involve a hybrid of in-person and telehealth visits, and thus the decision to use telehealth for any given patient will not be made at a single time point but rather considered in a longitudinal context," the perspective states. Previous studies have indicated that various benefits that arose from telehealth expansion. For example, a study published in September found that increased telehealth use during the pandemic led to a drop in opioid overdose risk. Researchers studied data from before and during the pandemic, which indicated that the likelihood of receiving opioid use disorder services and medications was higher in the mid-pandemic patient group that had increased access to telehealth. Further, telehealth continues to be used widely across the country. Recent data from FAIR Health shows that telehealth use rose 1.9 percent nationally from June to July and that it increased in three of the four US census regions: the Midwest, the South, and the West. See original article: https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/endocrine-society-provides-guidance-for-appropriate-use-of-telehealth < Previous News Next News >

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

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 >

Studies Show How Telehealth Can Increase Equitable Access to Care Center for Connected Health Policy May 24, 2022 Focus on the relationship between telehealth and disparities in access to care continues to result in new research examining pandemic era data and the use of telehealth among disadvantaged populations. While policymakers and studies often try to put findings into two groups, whether telehealth increases or decreases inequities, recent research shows that the study framework used and considerations made may impact outcomes more so than telehealth itself. For instance, this month a new study published in Health Affairs found that as a result of emergency federal telemedicine coverage expansions access increased for all Medicare populations, including those in the most disadvantaged areas. The study was framed to examine the impact of expanded telehealth coverage policies on different populations, rather than looking at access generally where inequities have unfortunately always existed. Comparing pre-COVID temporary waiver data with post-waiver implementation data, the authors discovered that the highest odds of utilization were among those in disadvantaged and metropolitan areas. As reported in a Managed Healthcare Executive article on the study, the Johns Hopkins researchers concluded that the results suggest that increased Medicare telemedicine coverage policies improve access to underserved populations without worsening disparities. An additional study just published in Telemedicine Journal and e-Health and covered in a healthleaders article showed that a virtual care program at Penn Medicine is reducing barriers to access specifically for Black patients and eliminating historic disparities. The authors looked at approximately one million appointments per year in both 2019 and 2020 for Philadelphia area patients and found that Black patients used telehealth more than non-Black patients and that appointment completion gaps between Black and non-Black patients closed. Also recently released, the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) produced a white paper titled The Future of Telehealth Roundtable: The Potential Impact of Emerging Technologies on Health Equity, which focuses on how to ensure telehealth increases equitable access to care. Following up on its previous pandemic telehealth work, in late 2021 NCQA pulled together a multidisciplinary panel of equity and technology experts for a discussion on equitable access and virtual health care delivery. Reviewing hypothetical case studies and responding to various questions, participants highlighted potential challenges and identified three primary ways to ensure equitable access in telehealth delivery: Tailoring Telehealth Use and Access to Individual Preferences and Needs Addressing Regulatory, Policy and Infrastructure Barriers to Fair Telehealth Access Leveraging Telehealth and Digital Technologies to Promote Equitable Care Delivery The white paper suggests the need to prioritize language and cultural humility, address digital literacy, and optimize telehealth for people with disabilities. In addition, in terms of barriers, the authors stress the need to address broadband infrastructure and licensure limitations, while also updating laws and regulations that restrict telehealth use, including payment policies. Another Health Affairs article published this month, Policy Considerations to Ensure Telemedicine Equity, also looked at various factors that must be taken into account to allow telehealth to increase equitable access to care. The author clarifies that equity is a matter beyond telehealth and is related to patient-level barriers that include family, community, and general health care delivery level factors, such as issues related to the digital divide. In addition, the article cautions against policies focusing on increased utilization concerns, stating that increased use may mean that patients are finally attaining the care they need, in addition to the fact that increased access may reduce overall health care costs. Therefore, policies seeking to reduce reimbursement or limit audio-only modalities to address utilization and cost concerns may instead primarily reduce clinicians’ willingness to offer telehealth and modalities that mitigate access barriers for historically excluded groups. The article also highlights how varying payer policies, such as those that allow reimbursement for telehealth visits with new patients versus those that do not, creates inequities, and that differing medical licensing and/or prescribing regulations by state can create inequitable access issues on top of differing coverage policies. These policy considerations are key to ensuring telemedicine mitigates inequities rather than exacerbates them. While the pandemic generally has highlighted and exacerbated existing inequities, it has also provided the information necessary to show telehealth’s ability to address disparities and increase equitable access to care. It is important that policymakers take such findings and opportunities from studies on telehealth equity into account when looking to potentially make pandemic policies permanent in order to properly preserve telehealth’s positive impacts. It is also important that the framework used in the study be placed in context to help explain why some research speaks to telehealth disparities, or health care disparities, versus how telehealth is decreasing health care disparities. As shown in the aforementioned studies and articles, the difference in framing showcases that telehealth in and of itself does not create or exacerbate disparities, rather it is a tool that can be utilized to decrease disparities in access to care. The tool has to be allowed to be effective, however, and that is where the role of public policy comes in. Policies must support broadband and telehealth infrastructure and promote the use of technology to deliver care equal to the delivery of in-person care. For instance, Medicaid policies that limit when telehealth can be used and/or certain allowable modalities can create inequities in comparison to more expansive commercial policies that guarantee better telehealth access to non-Medicaid patients. Therefore, policymakers must recognize that regulatory restrictions around telehealth cannot prevent already existing general access disparities, rather it is often the regulatory restrictions around telehealth that lead to exacerbating disparities. It becomes vital that research be put into context so that subsequent policies are implemented that allow telehealth to reach its full potential to reduce disparities. For full article: https://mailchi.mp/cchpca/the-latest-telehealth-research-studies-show-how-telehealth-can-increase-equitable-access-to-care < Previous News Next News >

First Name Last Name Email Subject Your message Sure, sign me up for updates. Send Thanks for connecting with NMTHA! Contact NMTHA

Memorial Hermann to provide school-based pediatric telehealth Naomi Diaz October 18, 2022 Houston-based Children's Memorial Hermann has partnered with telehealth company Hazel Health to provide outpatient pediatric care to K-12 students in Houston. Under the partnership, schools that have agreements with Hazel will be able to offer their students access to health services via virtual telehealth sessions, according to an Oct. 17 press release. Children's Memorial Hermann pediatricians or specialists will connect with the students through the program for follow-up or long-term care management. The aim of the partnership is to increase access to pediatric care in schools across 12 counties in southeast Texas. See original article: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/telehealth/memorial-hermann-to-provide-school-based-pediatric-telehealth.html < Previous News Next News >

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

New Study Finds Telehealth Outperforms In-Person Care in HEDIS Measures Eric Wicklund October 06, 2022 Researchers have found that telehealth performed better than in-person care in 11 of 16 HEDIS quality performance measures, but that doesn't mean virtual care is superior to the office visit. KEY TAKEAWAYS A recent study of more than 526,000 patients receiveing care at Wellspan Health sites in 2020 and 2021 found that telehealth outperformed in-person care in 11 of 16 HEDIS quality improvement measures for primary care. The research indicated in-person care was better in medication-based measures, while telehealth scored higher in testing and counseling measures. Researchers stressed that the results show a need for health systems to integrate telehealth with in-person care, enabling patients and providers to select the venue that most suits them and the treatment. New research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) finds that telehealth was superior to in-person care in 11 of 16 quality performance measures for primary care. The study, conducted by researchers at the Robert Graham Center in Washington DC and Pennsylvania-based Wellspan Health, focused on more than 526,000 patients receiving healthcare services at roughly 200 Wellspan Health outpatient sites between March 1, 2020, and November 30, 2021, and used HEDIS (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) measurements. The researchers, led by Derek Baughman, MD, of the Robert Graham Center and Wellspan Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, and Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, and John Westfall, MD, MPH, both of the Robert Graham Center, said the results don't mean that health systems should close their clinics and focus on virtual care. Rather, they should offer telehealth as a part of the overall care plan, particularly for those who face barriers to accessing in-person care. The study noted that in-person care showed better results for all medication-based measures, while telehealth offered better results in testing and counselling measures, such as vaccinations, chronic disease testing, and cancer and depression screenings. "Notwithstanding the statistical significance, the clinical relevance of these findings is perhaps more meaningful at the population health level for evaluating the outcomes of adding telemedicine as a care venue," Baughman and his colleagues noted. "Moreover, telemedicine exposure (especially blended office and telemedicine care) likely simulates a likely real-life scenario for the health consumer." "Practically, these findings provide reassurance for health entities seeking to add telemedicine to their care capacity without reducing quality of care," they added. "And as we found, embracing telemedicine for enhancing certain aspects of care might be an avenue for enhancing quality performance in primary care." Baughman and his team said it wasn't clear why telehealth outperformed in-person care, though they noted that a telehealth platform offers better opportunities for care providers to reach out multiple times to patients to "engage in quality measure-promoting intervention." They also noted that some treatments, such as the initiation of a lifelong or life-changing medication program, are best begun in person, and perhaps shifted to virtual platforms for follow-up. "Future studies could provide more granularity on optimizing the specific role of telemedicine in clinical scenarios, eg, understanding whether there is an association between stages of hypertension and effect modification attributable to the management venue or an association between venue and number of blood pressure medications," they wrote. "This would provide insight on where to invest in health care infrastructure and what clinical venue would be most valuable. This could also guide venue selection for patients initiating antihypertensive therapy vs patients requiring a third antihypertensive. Such insight would promote win-win environments to increase value: improved health outcomes for patients and incentive for clinicians and health systems operating in value-based care models." Eric Wicklund is the Innovation and Technology Editor for HealthLeaders. See original article: https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/telehealth/new-study-finds-telehealth-outperforms-person-care-hedis-measures < Previous News Next News >

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

Making Telemedicine Feasible for Everyone – Especially Those With Physical Challenges Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Southwest Telehealth Resource Center August 2021 In the context of healthcare, nondiscrimination on the basis of disability means equal access to available health care services, whether those services are provided in-person or via telehealth. Telemedicine has for years been touted as providing access to healthcare for everyone, anywhere, anytime and it has been quite successful in doing so in many respects but disparities still exist among a number of patient populations. In particular, those who traditionally have challenges accessing healthcare due to physical challenges often experience similar or even greater challenges with telemedicine. Think about for a minute. Telemedicine is predominantly provided using audio and/or video-based telecommunications technologies. This fundamental fact of how telemedicine visits occur can actually exacerbate digital disparities. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an individual with a disability is defined as: 1. a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major activities; or 2. a person who has a history or record of such an impairment; or 3. a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment Under Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any services, programs, or activities of the covered entity (e.g., healthcare providers). In the context of healthcare, nondiscrimination on the basis of disability means equal access to available health care services, whether those services are provided in-person or via telehealth. Some basic facts highlight the problem. About 15% of American adults (37.5 million) over 18 report some trouble hearing, 2 to 3 per 1,000 US children are born with detectable hearing loss in one or both ears and overall 1 in 8 people (13%) 12 years or older has hearing loss in both ears. Interestingly, non-Hispanic white adults are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to have hearing loss and non-Hispanic black adults have the lowest prevalence among adults aged 20-69. Rates increase with age. The statistics for vision impairments are equally high. About 12 million people over 40 years have a vision impairment, with 1 million who are blind and 6.8% of children younger than 18 have a diagnosed eye and vision condition. The annual economic impact of major vision problems for those over 40 is over $145 billion! For blindness, access to healthcare is especially critical as 90% of blindness caused by diabetes is preventable and early detection and treatment of conditions such as diabetic retinopathy is efficacious and cost effective. So what can we do in the telemedicine community to help ameliorate these disparities? The National Consortium of Telehealth Resource Centers has developed a fact sheet to help providers. Some of the key recommendations are actually fairly easy to carry out. Inventory products, services, and factors required to provide effective telehealth services to patients and ensure they meet basic accessibility requirements for people with disabilities. Consider compatibility of assistive technology (e.g., alternative keyboards) and whether they can work effectively with your chosen telehealth modality. Learn about and incorporate accessibility features (e.g., close-captioning) of software programs you use. Be sure to include the patient’s caregiver, family member, or home health aide during telehealth visits. Increase your knowledge and awareness on cultural competency and linguistic sensitivity. The easiest thing to do ask patients with disabilities about their accessibility requirements! Some additional aids to consider may take a little more effort but are worth it. For those with hearing loss consider: qualified sign language interpreter, qualified cued-speech interpreter, qualified tactile interpreter, real-time captioning or communication access real-time translation (CART), video remote interpreting (VRI), use written materials, ensure the patient has access to headphones or a headset, confirm participants are wearing their hearing aids or amplification device, and use video whenever possible to allow lip reading and provide visual clues like gestures. For those with vision loss consider: a qualified reader, information in large print, Braille, or electronically for use with a computer screen-reading program, have an audio recording of printed information, be aware of your background - there needs to be contrast between you and your background and blurring the background may make it challenging for the patient, ensure lighting is bright enough for patients to clearly see your face, use simplified and enlarged text, ensure patients have a computer-screen reading program for transmission of electronic information and try providing an audio recording of printed information provided during the appointment. Additional ideas and tips can be found on the Health & Human Services (HHS) website There is also good news in terms of funding. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced that under the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP), also called “iCanConnect,” may provide up to $10 million annually from the interstate telecommunications relay service fund (TRS Fund) to support local programs that distribute equipment to eligible low-income individuals who are deafblind to access telecommunications service, Internet access service, and advanced communications services. This is clearly a boon for telemedicine applications. The announcement includes a state-by-state list of the initial allocations for the 56 covered jurisdictions. Hearing and vision loss are just two common challenges deal with. Other physical, mental and behavioral challenges are very common as well, and many of the tips above can be adapted to these patients as well, especially simply reaching out and asking them what their needs are and how you can help meet them as well as involving the patient’s caregiver, family member, or home health aide during telehealth visits. Basically telemedicine must be available to any patient and programs should make it a priority to develop strategies and tools to empower all patients no matter what their resources and capabilities to access safe, effective and efficient care. < Previous News Next News >

CMS Proposes to Extend Telehealth Flexibilities Through 2023 Thomas Sullivan Oct 24, 2021 CMS Proposes to Extend Telehealth Flexibilities Through 2023 The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed in the 2022 Physician Fee Schedule to extend telehealth flexibilities through 2023 instead of through the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, which is expected to run through this year. Physician groups in comments on the rule called for a permanent solution beyond the dates set by CMS. Groups also submitted comments on MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs), ACO policies, and pending payment cuts. The final rule is expected around November 1, 2021. Telehealth Telehealth advocates called upon CMS to amend the proposed 2022 Physician Fee Schedule to permanently extend emergency measures on telehealth access and coverage that were enacted to deal with the pandemic. Many also called upon Congress to expand telehealth services. “The ATA commends the Biden Administration for their actions in support of telehealth, and we appreciate CMS’ intent to ensure Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to quality healthcare when and where they need it,” ATA CEO Ann Mond Johnson said in its letter to CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure. “However, as important as the Physician Fee Schedule is, we urge Congress to act before the vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries go off the ‘telehealth cliff’ at the end of the public health emergency.” “The ATA understands that CMS is simply following Congress’ lead, though we are hopeful Congress will correct this wrong in the statute,” Johnson said. “There is no clinical evidence for an arbitrary in-person requirement before a patient can access telehealth services. However, in the proposed rule, CMS considers requiring an in-person visit, not only within the ‘six-month period prior to the first time’ the provider furnishes telehealth to the individual, as stated by law, but also within six months prior to subsequent telehealth visits. This effectively creates a new, arbitrary requirement for the patient to have an in-person mental health visit every six months should the patient plan to seek telehealth services with that provider.” The Medical Group Management Association also commented that removing services after a “predetermined or prescriptive date” could create a major administrative burden for practices already strained financially by the pandemic. “Member group practices report that adjusting workflows to operationalize the use of new telehealth codes requires additional resources, such as clinician and staff training and patient education,” MGMA said in comments. “Removing telehealth services from the covered code list will prove disruptive to both practices and patients alike, as patients have become accustomed to receiving these services virtually.” MIPS Value Pathways and ACOs The proposed rule calls for beginning use of the value pathways program in MIPS for 2023 and having it replace MIPS entirely in 2027. MVP is intended to align clinician reporting requirements, but the American Hospital Association (AHA) said it’s unclear whether the program would reduce administrative burden as expected or that it would be equitable across specialties. AHA said it “believes that unless and until CMS can address several conceptual issues with MVPs … CMS should not set a date certain for transitioning to mandatory MVP participation.” The Medical Group Management Association also had concerns, particularly about provider burden. Group purchasing organization Premier addressed the proposed rule’s changes to reporting from accountable care organizations. It applauded the more gradual move to using electronic clinical quality measures, citing the reporting burden associated with them. Premier also asked CMS to recognize that ACO reporting is “fundamentally different from reporting by clinicians and groups.” The National Association of ACOs echoed those comments. Pay Cuts In comments on the proposed rule, physician groups were also worried about a looming 3.75% cut in the 2022 Medicare conversion factor, which calculates reimbursement for procedures under fee-for-service. The cuts are mandated under a budget neutrality provision in Congress and comes after a pay bump from Congress that expires in 2022. The AMA said that it is urging CMS to work with Congress for relief on the budget neutrality issue. “CMS should exercise the full breadth and depth of its administrative authority to avert or, at a minimum, mitigate these unconscionable payment cuts,” the group added. https://www.policymed.com/2021/10/cms-proposes-to-extend-telehealth-flexibilities-through-2023.html < Previous News Next News >

US Reps Push for Extension of Telehealth Flexibilities for HDHP Members Mark Melchionna December 15, 2022 Three US Representatives led a bipartisan group of lawmakers in submitting a request to Congress to extend telehealth flexibilities for some high-deductible health plan members. In anticipation of critical telehealth flexibilities expiring on Dec. 31, US Representatives Michelle Steel (CA-48), Brad Schneider (IL-10), and Susie Lee (NV-3), along with a bipartisan group of 30 Congress members, sent a letter requesting that House leadership include two pieces of legislation that extend some flexibilities in a year-end package. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, patients and providers turned to telehealth in droves to maintain care. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there was a 154 percent increase in telehealth visits when comparing data from the last week of March 2020 with that of March 2019. This uptake of telehealth was likely associated with the withdrawal of regulatory restrictions in response to the limitations placed on in-person care during the public health emergency. As part of the CARES Act of 2020, Congress passed reforms that expanded access to telehealth services. For instance, prior to the CARES Act, Americans with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) coupled with health savings accounts (HSAs) had to reach the minimum deductible before they qualified for telehealth coverage. However, Section 3701 of the CARES Act eliminated this requirement initially through Dec. 31, 2021. The provision was later extended through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. This led to wider coverage of telehealth services as health plans and employers were able to expand access to virtual care services for individuals with HDHP-HSAs pre-deductible. According to the representatives, increased access has led to many benefits for patients, particularly those without access to transportation services and those who reside far away from clinical locations. “Access to telehealth has also provided a significant portion of the U.S. workforce relief at a time when household costs are rising. Telehealth has allowed families to avoid taking time off from work to travel to and from appointments, and timely care has helped prevent costly visits to urgent care or the emergency room. Unfortunately, those with a high deductible may decide to skip critical preventative services – including primary care and behavioral health services – if the deductible is not waived, often leading to poor health outcomes and more costly care down the line,” the letter states. Due to the increasingly apparent benefits of telehealth, the US representatives are requesting that House leadership include the Primary and Virtual Care Affordability Act and the Telehealth Expansion Act in the end-of-the-year package. The Telehealth Expansion Act would make the telehealth flexibility permanent for people with HDHP-HSAs. The Primary and Virtual Care Affordability Act would both extend the flexibility and allow insurance providers to cover primary care services pre-deductible. This letter is part of a larger effort among healthcare stakeholders to ensure that expanded access to telehealth is solidified. Another letter written by the Connected Health Initiative (CHI) requested that Congress extend the safe harbor for telehealth coverage by HDHPs. In the letter, CHI noted its support for removing restrictions impeding telehealth access among Medicare beneficiaries. It also emphasized the upcoming telehealth deadline Americans with HDHPs will face at the end of 2022. Due to this, CHI requested that Congress extend the safe harbor for HDHPs to cover telehealth with first-dollar coverage. This would also allow them to maintain HDHP status. See original article: https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/us-reps-push-for-extension-of-telehealth-flexibilities-for-hdhp-members < Previous News Next News >

Biden’s American Jobs Plan Increases Investments in Broadband Infrastructure Center for Connected Health Policy April 13, 2021 President Biden’s recently released American Jobs Plan includes $100 billion to increase access to affordable, reliable, and high-speed broadband throughout the country. President Biden’s recently released American Jobs Plan includes $100 billion to increase access to affordable, reliable, and high-speed broadband throughout the country. Comparing digital infrastructure today to affordable access to electricity in the 1930s, the Fact Sheet on the Plan released by the White House states how the pandemic has highlighted existing disparities related to the digital divide and the lack of broadband access to more than 30 million Americans. The $100 billion investment will prioritize broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas to reach 100% high-speed broadband coverage. It also sets aside funds for tribal lands and promotes broadband providers less focused on profits, such as those affiliated with municipalities, and seeks to improve price transparency and competition among internet service providers. The plan will include internet subsidies to low-income consumers, but states that in the long-term, the President is committed to working with Congress to reduce internet prices negating the need for such short-term solutions. The full Fact Sheet on The American Jobs Plan can be accessed on the White House website, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/. < Previous News Next News >

Teledentistry – Lights. Camera. Open Wide. By Trudy Bearden April 7, 2021 The American Dental Association (ADA) Policy on Teledentistry notes that services delivered via teledentistry must be consistent with how they would be delivered in-person. Well… not quite; but it may not be what you think. I’m not here to make the case about the importance of good oral health, the impacts of poor oral health on overall health and chronic disease, the potential to lower health care costs and our countless opportunities to integrate oral health into health care services. Rather I ask that you join me to learn just a bit more about what teledentistry is and how it can be used to expand access, provide education and elevate team-based care. Teledentistry. The American Dental Association (ADA) Policy on Teledentistry notes that services delivered via teledentistry must be consistent with how they would be delivered in-person. According to the ADA, teledentistry includes patient care and patient education delivery using (but not limited to) four modalities: Synchronous (live video) – use of audio and video for real-time communication Asynchronous (store and forward) – secure electronic transmission of radiographs, photos, video, digital impressions or photomicrographs, etc. to evaluate, render an opinion or service or develop a treatment plan Remote physiologic monitoring – electronic transmission of physiologic data (e.g., weight, oxygen saturation, blood glucose levels) Mobile health (mHealth) – sharing of education and/or information by mobile communications or use of apps (e.g., reminds or monitors oral hygiene activities) Store and forward. Dental hygienists can assess the mouths of patients, chart areas of concern, decay or periodontal disease, take high-resolution photographs and x-rays and transmit that information to a dentist who can review the materials and develop a treatment plan for a patient. Expand access. In rural areas with shortages of dentists, primary care clinics can “bring” a dentist or other oral health specialist into the exam room by synchronous (live video) communication to assess and discuss a dental issue and subsequent treatment plan for a patient. This is a far superior option than just prescribing antibiotics and pain medications, which may end with the patient in the emergency department. Education. Using a synchronous modality, there are ample opportunities for providing oral health education to patients and families, those in dentistry, those in the medical field, teams considering oral health integration and more. While there are several teledentistry modalities available, the following are the high leverage applications: Using store and forward technology for dental hygienists and others on dental and medical care teams Including dentists and other oral health and dental specialists (e.g., orthodontist) to join primary care office visits Using synchronous and asynchronous (e.g., secure messaging/email) options for provider-to-provider consults Providing synchronous and broad oral health education What’s in it for us and ours? How do we harness teledentistry to improve oral health? As an individual, it’s reasonable to ask your dentist what they are doing or are planning to do to implement or expand teledentistry to know whether there are additional options for you. If delivering health care services to patients, whether in the outpatient, inpatient, specialist, long-term service supports or elsewhere, we should: Know what the teledentistry options are in our area, especially if we are in a rural area with a shortage of dentists Ensure that all patients have a dental home and are receiving preventive and curative dental services – by teledentistry if necessary and available to them Consider an oral health education program that is delivered virtually or remotely and/or includes mHealth or app-based options If you are particularly passionate about the potential of teledentistry, know the barriers in your state and area and find ways to overcome those barriers, which include parity of coverage, parity of payment, and statutes governing teledentistry in your state. Checking this interactive map from the Center for Connected Health Policy is a good starting place. Adequate and access to bandwidth and provider, patient and family buy-in can be significant factors as well. Either way – let’s get our teeth into teledentistry and do what we can to leverage the full range of options to help individuals optimize their oral health. Interactive map: https://www.cchpca.org/ < Previous News Next News >