Why is an Alliance needed? NMTHA assists with ensuring telehealth program dollars are applied effectively and efficiently through : Clinical coordination Technical coordination Health information technology Administrative Services Federal, State, and private funds are spent on telehealth programs with little or no attention to coordination with other programs, efficient reuse of existing resources, and delivering the best level of cost-effective services. Existing and proposed programs create a patchwork of telehealth solutions with overlaps, gaps, and little long-term accountability. No entity coordinates telehealth statewide and ensures that telehealth programs and dollars generate the best possible health benefits for New Mexicans. How can New Mexico ensure dollars spent on telehealth programs are applied effectively and efficiently? New Mexico needs an organization to provide the following telehealth-related services: Clinical Coordination: Identifying healthcare delivery needs, finding organizations to deliver healthcare services, monitoring the delivery, and ensuring improved health outcomes. Technical Coordination: Identifying the proper technical solution for healthcare service delivery including equipment evaluation, telecommunications connectivity, reuse of existing resources, scheduling, network management, support, and maintenance. Health Information Technology: Managing information exchange among healthcare providers and ensuring compliance with federal, state, and other standards. Administrative Services: Reimbursement issues, administrative policy and procedures, legislative issues, and general management of the telehealth process. Every dollar spent on coordination ensures that dollars spent on specific telehealth programs generate the greatest improvement in health across all programs and regions of the State. Be part of the solution! Join the New Mexico Telehealth Alliance JOIN NOW

Why College Students Should Make the Most of Telehealth Justin Weinger August 2021 Telehealth means not having to miss class and then need to play catch up. This is a huge win, especially when you’re going to college full-time. Whether you’re a freshman or just about finished with your degree, you probably don’t have a lot of free time. So, when it comes to squeezing in routine healthcare, you might think you don’t have the time. However, thanks to the advances made in telehealth, you can now take care of your health from the comfort of your dorm. Here are four reasons why you should consider using telehealth for your medical care. No Need to Miss Class As exciting as it is to venture into young adulthood, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed with a heavier course load. Even if you’re still living at home and attending classes online, transitioning from high school to college means having less time to take care of yourself. Telehealth makes taking care of yourself a lot easier. In fact, telehealth means not having to miss class and then need to play catch up. This is a huge win, especially when you’re going to college full-time. Improved Health We’ve all heard of the freshman 15, so if you find yourself with a little more around your middle, utilizing telehealth services can help you lose the weight safely. In addition, having online access to medical professionals ensures that you receive proper medical care faster than you would sitting in the ER. With that said, you should also head to the nearest hospital if you’re having a medical emergency. You can also discuss ways to ward off common illnesses that are prevalent amongst college students. Meningitis, for example, has a high occurrence rate in college students, so it’s always best to know whether you’re suitable for the vaccine. If not, your medical provider can recommend ways to decrease the risk of contracting it. Online Support System Growing up isn’t easy, even when you think you have it all figured out. It’s not uncommon for college students to develop anxiety, depression and other mental health issues while going to college. In addition to reviewing specific guides that support the mental health of college students on and off campus, you can use telehealth services to manage your wellbeing as well. There are a variety of psychological services available online for college students, all of which are confidential. Personalized Care If you’ve ever been to a busy doctor’s office, you might have gotten the feeling that you were just one of many. Not to say that you doctor doesn’t care about you, but medical offices are known to book more appointments than time may allow, leaving you with less than 10 minutes to explain what the issue is and hear your doctor’s remedy. Online medical care gives you a more personalized experience, possibly better than what you’re used to having in person. You can also schedule your appointment when you have more time to discuss your problems without feeling like you need to rush to get everything done. Many doctors or nurse practitioners schedule virtual appointments early in the morning or after hours in the evening. This also works out well for your doctor. Although they may have virtual appointments booked one after another, they don’t have the same distractions they may encounter with in-person office visits. This allows them to give you their undivided attention. Source: https://telemedicine.arizona.edu/blog/why-college-students-should-make-most-telehealth < Previous News Next News >

HIMSSCast: How emerging tech is opening new avenues in telehealth, RPM Mike Miliard October 28, 2022 Virtual therapeutics, voice recognition and fast-evolving artificial intelligence tools are transforming home-based care, says Robin Farmanfarmaian, co-author of the new book How AI Can Democratize Healthcare. Remote patient monitoring and other forms of virtual care are fast finding footholds in healthcare as patients get acquainted with these new care modalities, and as health systems learn to appreciate the cost efficiencies they offer. But telehealth and RPM are still in their early days, and fast-changing as they're augmented with other new and emerging digital health and artificial intelligence technologies. Robin Farmanfarmaian, a longtime Silicon Valley entrepreneur and co-author of the new book, How AI Can Democratize Healthcare, joined us recently to discuss how the growing momentum toward home-based care is being impacted by leading-edge innovations such as natural language processing, digital therapeutics and more. leading-edge-technologies-are-transforming-telehealth-and-rpm (1).mp3 Talking points: Where remote patient monitoring is now, and where it's headed How AI is changing how virtual care is delivered New approaches to patient engagement and experience What's next for digital therapeutics and other app-based interventions Innovative use cases for NLP and machine learning models More about this episode: The intersection of remote patient monitoring and AI How remote patient monitoring is moving into the mainstream AI-powered telehealth improves PT care at Essen Health Care Mayo Clinic working with Memora Health on virtual postpartum care AI-powered RPM can help address the rural neonatal care crisis How remote patient monitoring improves care, saves money AI and IoT device connects with concierge platform for RPM Twitter: @MikeMiliardHITN Email the writer: mike.miliard@himssmedia.com Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS publication. See original podcast: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/himsscast-how-emerging-tech-opening-new-avenues-telehealth-rpm < Previous News Next News >

Building Lasting Tele-Behavioral Health Programs to Address Patient Needs Kat Jercich, Healthcare IT News. August 2021 In a HIMSS21 Global Conference Digital session, two experts discuss what it's taken for the University of Rochester to spin up a virtual behavioral health program over the past nine years. Telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed many patients – especially those in under-resourced areas – unprecedented access to behavioral healthcare. But as Michael Hasselberg, senior director of digital health at the University of Rochester, discussed with Cleveland Clinic Director of Design and Best Practices Julie Rish during a HIMSS21 Global Conference Digital session, such programs have required being nimble and adaptable in the face of changing needs. Hasselberg outlined the results of a tele-behavioral health model in effect at the University of Rochester, explaining that it grew from a pilot program aimed at primary care doctors to a full-scale initiative in nearly a decade. But the pandemic, he says, ramped up demand – and the supply had to change in response. "Like every health system in the entire country, overnight you had to flip the switch on, and essentially totally pivot to telemedicine," he said. Having the infrastructure and years of experience allowed the team to shift within about a week to providing behavioral health services nearly entirely virtually. Even as vaccines have become more readily available, Hasselberg estimates that about 60% of the team's ambulatory services are being provided via telemedicine. Interestingly, considering reports from other parts of the country, Hasselberg said the team has not encountered patient difficulties with broadband access, even in rural areas – thanks in part to state government efforts to ensure connectivity throughout the region. But one challenge, he said, has been gaining community trust and support. "Learning to build those community partnerships, identify how the stakeholders are, doing focus groups … has allowed us to be successful," he said. For other organizations looking to replicate the university's success, he said, start by reaching out to providers already in place. "Build that partnership there. Find out where their struggles may be, where the gaps may be, how you can join forces to fill those gaps and truly partner," he advised. He also suggests approaching the programs as iterative – being agile and flexible, and not allowing perfect to be the enemy of good. "Just get something out there: See what works and what doesn't work, and continue to build off of that," he said. It's also vital to remember that not every service can be done via telehealth, he said. Having a support network to assist patients with technology is enormously helpful. Rish noted that it's not just about access alone. It's also about comfort and about trust. "Having somebody from your team who can get to the community, who can be onsite – that's really important," said Hasselberg. Hasselberg said it's been useful to examine who can most benefit from telehealth because of transportation hurdles or other barriers to in-person care. "Finding parking at an academic medical center is not an easy thing to do!" he laughed. By merging that information with electronic health record data, he said, the team can get specific about how best to target services. As far as care delivery predictions, Hasselberg said he saw telemedicine as the "tip of the iceberg." "I think the future of behavioral health will be an a la carte array of options," he said. < Previous News Next News >

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

Effects on Patient Access to Telehealth as Some State Emergencies End Center for Connected Health Policy July 2021 With state of emergency declarations expiring or being lifted in states, there is growing concern patients are being left with reduced access if no permanent telehealth policy changes have been enacted. With state of emergency declarations expiring or being lifted in states, there is growing concern patients are being left with reduced access if no permanent telehealth policy changes have been enacted. According to the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), nearly 20 states no longer are under emergency orders, with many soon to follow. Many states attached telehealth flexibilities to the federal public health emergency (PHE) while others made them contingent on state emergency declarations. Some states have successfully passed legislation to extend certain telehealth flexibilities in advance of state of emergency expirations, such as Connecticut and Delaware. The federal government Emergency Preparedness and Response for Home and Community Based (HCBS) 1915(c) Waivers were often originally tied to state emergencies, but appear to now extend 6 months after the federal PHE ends. Alaska is one of the states no longer under a state of emergency. During the pandemic a local outlet reported thousands of patients were being referred to out-of-state providers, especially in Washington, via telehealth for a variety of reasons including lack of specialty care and long wait times. Once the emergency licensing waivers expired, however, Seattle hospitals were sent rushing to reschedule Alaska patients and resume the more stringent process of becoming licensed in Alaska. According to recent local reports, Florida’s emergency expiration also took away audio-only and the ability to use telehealth to prescribe controlled substances and recertify medical cannabis patients. The Florida Medical Association told the local news outlet they will continue the push to make telehealth changes permanent in the next state legislative session, especially those requiring insurer reimbursement and payment parity, without which they say telehealth will simply no longer be made available to patients. For more information on the status of the emergency orders in each state visit the NASHP website - https://www.nashp.org/governors-prioritize-health-for-all/. < Previous News Next News >

Board of Directors BOARD A message from the Chair: Stetson Berg Thanks to our work at the Alliance and a terrific Legislature, New Mexico enjoys one of the most progressive telehealth statutes in the country. That doesn’t mean our work is done. The New Mexico Telehealth Alliance exists to support New Mexico telehealth capabilities by continuing to advocate for needed policy changes, providing useful resources in a variety of formats, and creating mechanisms for convening and sharing. We offer educational webinars, online forums, links to resources, and networking opportunities. Connect with us and participate in strengthening New Mexico's access and capacity to provide care across our vast State by bringing a telehealth-related problem you need help solving, joining a committee, participating in our webinars, or sharing your expertise as a speaker. Stetson Berg, MHA UNITED HEALTHCARE COMMUNITY AND STATE Chair Executive Committee Member Alex Carter, DMS, PA-C OCHSNER HEALTH Vice Chair Executive Committee Member Jennifer Sandoval, MHA MOLINA HEALTHCARE NEW MEXICO Secretary Executive Committee Member Maggie McCowen, LISW, MBA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO Treasurer Executive Committee Member Jerry Harrison, PhD NEW MEXICO HEALTH RESOURCES Executive Committee Member Beth Landon, MBA, MHA LANDON & ASSOCIATES Immediate Past Chair Executive Committee Member Robert Longstreet NEW MEXICO PRIMARY CARE ASSOCIATION Executive Committee Member Richard Draper, JD COMAGINE HEALTH Advisory Council Chair Dale Alverson, MD UNM, PROFESSOR EMERITUS TOUCH-TSC, LLC Gisela Bartolome, MBA SYNCRONYS Kate Berg, RN UNM PROJECT ACCESS Christine David, MBA PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SERVICES Anneke Frankel, MPH UNITED HEALTHCARE COMMUNITY AND STATE Maggie Gunter, PhD SYNCRONYS TOUCH-TSC, LLC Annie Jung, MD NEW MEXICO MEDICAL SOCIETY Monica Marthell, DHA BLUE CROSS / BLUE SHIELD OF NEW MEXICO Niles McCall, MLS, CHCP NEW MEXICO MEDICAL SOCIETY Joy Thompson ALLIANCE FOR NAVAJO BROADBAND SPECTRUM SOLUTIONS, LLC

AHA Requests Information on Telehealth Prescriptions for Controlled Substances Mark Melchionna December 05, 2022 The American Hospital Association has asked the Drug Enforcement Administration to release information regarding future telehealth regulations for prescribing controlled substances. Representing nearly 5,000 member hospitals, health systems, and other healthcare organizations, a letter from the American Hospital Association (AHA) asked that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) clarify future telehealth regulations for prescribing controlled substances and provide recommendations for an interim plan. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, some policies prohibited the use of telehealth for certain medical activities. For example, the Ryan Haight Act of 2008 amended the Controlled Substance Act to eliminate providers' ability to prescribe controlled substances through telehealth with no in-person visit beforehand. The act detailed the need for initial in-person evaluations before virtual prescribing controlled substances. However, exceptions to the in-person visit requirement can be enacted during public health emergencies (PHEs). This led the DEA to temporarily lift the in-person visit requirement during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing patients to continue receiving controlled substance medications. Through the pandemic, the flexibilities helped support patients in various ways, including enabling prescriptions of controlled substances to be delivered via telehealth and allowing providers to use telephone evaluations to initiate buprenorphine prescribing, the AHA noted. The AHA sent the letter to the DEA to obtain further information regarding the future of these telehealth flexibilities. About 14 years ago, the Ryan Haight Act established the requirement that agencies issue a regulation that outlines the special registration process for telemedicine to waive the in-person requirement. Three years ago, the SUPPORT Act reinforced this policy. However, providers are continuing to wait for guidance with the concern that the expiration of the COVID-19 PHE will put them in a position where they cannot provide treatment. "With the expiration of the COVID-19 PHE currently scheduled for next year, this situation could come to pass as early as mid-January," the AHA wrote. Thus, the AHA has asked the DEA to provide proposed rules for the special registration for telemedicine process, noting that issues such as staffing shortages, provider burnout, and financial constraints would benefit from more time to reallocate resources to operationalize new regulation requirements. The letter also included a request for the DEA to provide an interim plan to support the continuity of care between the expiration of the COVID-19 PHE and the implementation of the special registration for telemedicine final rules. According to the AHA, the interim plan should include waiving the in-person requirement for prescribing buprenorphine. Further, the waiver should be transitioned and incorporated under the Opioid Epidemic PHE, according to the association. The letter also recommends that the DEA provide patients engaged in an episode of care that began virtually before the end of the COVID-19 PHE with a solution and support those who initiated an episode of care between the end of the COVID-19 PHE and the establishment of the final rules for special registration for telemedicine. The AHA letter comes as healthcare stakeholders urge Congress to solidify various telehealth flexibilities enacted during the pandemic. In December, a letter composed by the Connected Health Initiative (CHI) to the leaders of the US Senate and House Representatives asked that Congress continue the safe harbor for telehealth coverage by high-deductible health plans (HDHPs). In this letter, CHI noted its support for removing restrictions to telehealth access facing Medicare beneficiaries; however, it also asked that Congress separately extend the safe harbor for HDHPs to cover telehealth with first-dollar coverage. See original article: https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/aha-requests-information-on-telehealth-prescriptions-for-controlled-substances < 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 >

Interstate Telehealth Use By Medicare Beneficiaries Before And After COVID-19 Licensure Waivers, 2017–20 Juan J. Andino, Ziwei Zhu, Mihir Surapaneni, Rodney L. Dunn, and Chad Ellimoottil Abstract During the COVID-19 pandemic, all fifty states and Washington, D.C., passed licensure waivers that allowed patients to participate in telehealth visits with out-of-state clinicians (that is, interstate telehealth). Because many of these temporary flexibilities have expired or are set to expire, we analyzed trends in interstate telehealth use by Medicare beneficiaries during 2017–20, which covers the period both directly before and during the first year of the pandemic. Although the volume of interstate telehealth use increased in 2020, out-of-state telehealth made up a small share of all outpatient visits (0.8 percent) and of all telehealth visits (5 percent) overall. For individual states, out-of-state telehealth made up between 0.2 percent and 9.3 percent of all outpatient visits. We found that most out-of-state telehealth use was for established patient care and that a higher percentage of out-of-state telehealth users lived in rural areas compared with beneficiaries who did not receive care outside of their state (28 percent versus 23 percent). Our collective findings suggest that the elimination of pandemic licensure flexibilities will affect different states to varying degrees and will also affect the delivery of care for both established patients and rural patients. View Full Article: https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01825?journalCode=hlthaff < 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 >

Membership Benefits Welcome to the New Mexico Telehealth Alliance! This members section contains exclusive content and is available to subscribed members. For information on membership benefits, please select an option below. If you're already a member, please log-in to access your exclusive content. Click here to download NMTHA virtual backgrounds (ZOOM and Google Meets compatible). Membership Benefits Learn more New Member Log-in Guide Download Add/Change Member Guide Download

USDA Invests in Four New Mexico Projects for Distance Learning and Telemedicine Infrastructure to Improve Education and Health Outcomes By Amy Mund February 25, 2021 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced it is investing $42.3 million to help rural residents gain access to health care and educational opportunities. Rural areas are seeing higher infection and death rates related to COVID-19 due to several factors, including a much higher percentage of underlying conditions, difficulty accessing medical care, and lack of health insurance. The $42.3 million in awards includes $24 million provided through the CARES Act. In total, these investments will benefit 5 million rural residents. “The coronavirus pandemic is a national emergency that requires an historic federal response. These investments by the Biden Administration will help millions of people living in rural places access health care and education opportunities that could change and save lives,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “USDA is helping rural America build back better using technology as a cornerstone to create more equitable communities. With health care and education increasingly moving to online platforms, the time is now to make historic investments in rural America to improve quality of life for decades to come.” USDA is funding 86 projects through the Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grant program. The program helps rural education and health care entities remotely reach students, patients and outside expertise. These capabilities make world-class education and health care opportunities accessible in rural communities. The ability to use telehealth resources is critical, especially now during a global pandemic. “The funding will provide new technology to expand learning beyond the classroom, healthcare beyond the doctor’s office and extend the reach of services to the respective regions,” said Acting New Mexico Rural Development State Director Eric Vigil. Fort Lewis College (FLC) in Durango, CO will use a $950,060 grant to strategically align technology that facilitates distance learning, improving access for roughly 3,270 students in the communities where they live. This HyFlex course design will be provided at four rural connectivity centers in La Plata and Conejos Counties in Colorado, Apache County in Arizona, and San Juan County in New Mexico. A HyFlex course design allows students to attend face-to-face classes, through synchronous sessions, fully online, allowing FLC to continue innovative delivering of quality education and support to students despite the continuing challenges presented by COVID-19. The rural connectivity centers will help mitigate the digital divide for the learning communities that are most affected by digital inequities by providing rural students with the internet and technology necessary to fully engage in courses from afar. They will also allow students from each community to access their professors as well as fully engage with the services that students on-campus are able to access including the student health center, faculty office hours, academic support such as tutoring and library services, and student-run organizations. Tanya V. Marin PC will utilize a $263,640 DLT Grant to purchase telemedicine equipment to help Santa Teresa Children's Day and Night Clinic implement a comprehensive health care and wellness programs. Six fully-equipped and upgraded telemedicine carts will be provided to five hub/end-user sites. These sites include three elementary schools and two community clinics. Each site will have the capacity to receive primary care services for children and adults, women's health, and mental health and behavior services, including substance misuse prevention and treatment. The sites are expected to serve approximately 14,000 people in Dona Ana, Socorro, Sierra and Union counties. Ben Archer Health Center Inc. was awarded a $153,963 DLT Grant to provide remote medical, dental and behavioral health care services for underserved and uninsured patients, and distance learning education for health care professionals in Dona Ana, Luna, Otero and Sierra counties. An interactive system involving telemedicine carts with accessories will enable live audio-video interactions between health care professionals and patients. Teleconference equipment for conference rooms will facilitate distance learning and group sessions, and laptops for medical, dental and behavioral providers will be used to provide services to patients in rural communities. New Mexico Highlands University received a $510,363 DLT Grant to create a distance learning hub/end-user site at the main campus in Las Vegas, and at a second end-user site in Mora, N.M. The system will eliminate barriers to higher education for residents of remote communities in San Miguel and Mora counties. This funding will enable New Mexico Highlands University to offer remote courses and to implement remote student support programs (especially for STEM students). In addition to equipping the remote site, the project will fund the purchase of computers configured specifically for distance learning. These computers will be loaned to students. The Mora site also be made available to community members for activities such as workforce development. A recent report by the Rural Policy Research Institute’s Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis found infection and death rates in rural America due to COVID-19 are 13.4 percent higher than in urban areas. A recent report from USDA’s Economic Research Service, USDA ERS - Rural Residents Appear to be More Vulnerable to Serious Infection or Death From Coronavirus COVID-19, underscored the challenges facing rural Americans amidst the COVID-19 pandemic with even greater detail. Due to a confluence of factors, including higher percentages of underlying conditions, lack of health insurance, and lower access to medical facilities/care than urban counterparts, ERS analysts found rural Americans are suffering more severe illness or death due to COVID-19. Rural Residents Appear to be More Vulnerable to Serious Infection or Death from Coronavirus COVID-19 Underlying health conditions (ages 20 to 84) Rural Percent, 23.7 Urban Percent, 3.0 Older adult population scale Rural Percent, 15.9 Urban Percent, 4.0 Lacking health insurance (ages 25 to 64) Rural Percent, 20.2 Urban Percent, 10.5 Distance to county with an intensive care hospital Rural Percent, 11.3 Urban Percent, 0.3 The table above is from the USDA ERS January 2021 report: Rural Residents Appear to be More Vulnerable to Serious Infection or Death from Coronavirus COVID-19 In January, President Biden requested all parts of the federal government to contribute resources to contain the coronavirus pandemic. USDA is responding to the President’s call to action. To date, more than 350 USDA personnel have deployed to assist with standing up vaccination sites, for example. In addition to personnel, USDA is offering its facilities, cold chain infrastructure, public health experts, disaster response specialists, and footprint in rural and Tribal communities across the country. USDA’s commitment to control the pandemic extends to our own staff and facilities, with masking and physical distancing requirements across USDA, a commitment to provide PPE to our front-line workers, and working with states to prioritize vaccinations for our workforce. For more information, visit www.usda.gov/coronavirus. USDA also encourages people seeking health insurance to go to HealthCare.gov now through May 15th due to a special enrollment period. If you are recently uninsured due to a job loss or between jobs, find a plan at HealthCare.gov and keep it for as long as you need it. USDA Rural Development provides loans and grants to help expand economic opportunities and create jobs in rural areas. This assistance supports infrastructure improvements; business development; housing; community facilities such as schools, public safety and health care; and high-speed internet access in rural areas. For more information, visit www.rd.usda.gov/nm. USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. In the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, ensuring access to healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate-smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit www.usda.gov . < 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 >