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

New ULC Uniform Telehealth Act Highlights Important Policy Considerations & Licensure Trends Center for Connected Health Policy August 2022 The new Uniform Telehealth Act states that services can be provided via telehealth consistent with existing practitioner standards of care and it also establishes a registration process allowing out-of-state providers to deliver services through telehealth to patients in states that choose to adopt the Act. For full post see: https://www.cchpca.org/resources/new-ulc-uniform-telehealth-act-highlights-important-policy-considerations-licensure-trends/ < Previous News Next News >

Principal Deputy Inspector General Grimm on Telehealth By Christi A. Grimm, HHS-OIG Principal Deputy Inspector General February 26, 2021 It has been just over a year into the COVID-19 pandemic and we remember the over 500,000 Americans who have lost their lives due to COVID-19. That figure is a stark reminder of the critical mission of the Department of Health and Human Services. Challenges in responding to the pandemic have been many, thorny and unprecedented. Consequential decisions often were made quickly to respond to the emergency and provide relief in the way of funding, supplies, and reductions in regulatory and procedural burden. This quick response and scope of relief make oversight, enforcement, transparency, program integrity, and accountability all the more important. It has been just over a year into the COVID-19 pandemic and we remember the over 500,000 Americans who have lost their lives due to COVID-19. That figure is a stark reminder of the critical mission of the Department of Health and Human Services. Challenges in responding to the pandemic have been many, thorny and unprecedented. Consequential decisions often were made quickly to respond to the emergency and provide relief in the way of funding, supplies, and reductions in regulatory and procedural burden. This quick response and scope of relief make oversight, enforcement, transparency, program integrity, and accountability all the more important. Early in the pandemic, OIG, along with many others, recognized the value of expanding options for accessing health care services. Telehealth is a prime example. Where telehealth and other remote access technologies were once a matter of convenience, the public health emergency made them a matter of safety for many beneficiaries. In some cases, health care providers needed regulatory flexibility to provide safe and effective care remotely during the ongoing pandemic. In March 2020, we issued policy statements and FAQs in support of increased telehealth flexibilities. A year later, there is a robust national conversation about expanding coverage for telehealth services based on the experience providers and patients have had during the pandemic. For most, telehealth expansion is viewed positively, offering opportunities to increase access to services, decrease burdens for both patients and providers, and enable better care, including enhanced mental health care. A 2019 OIG study found that telehealth can be an important tool to improve patient access to behavioral health services. And as we observed in recent rulemaking, OIG recognizes the promise that telehealth and other digital health technologies have for improving care coordination and health outcomes. It is important that new policies and technologies with potential to improve care and enhance convenience achieve these goals and are not compromised by fraud, abuse, or misuse. OIG is conducting significant oversight work assessing telehealth services during the public health emergency. Once complete, these reviews will provide objective findings and recommendations that can further inform policymakers and other stakeholders considering what telehealth flexibilities should be permanent. This work can help ensure the potential benefits of telehealth are realized for patients, providers, and HHS programs. We anticipate the first work products to be published later this year. We are aware of concerns raised regarding enforcement actions related to "telefraud" schemes, and it is important to distinguish those schemes from telehealth fraud. In the last few years, OIG has conducted several large investigations of fraud schemes that inappropriately leveraged the reach of telemarketing schemes in combination with unscrupulous doctors conducting sham remote visits to increase the size and scale of the perpetrator's criminal operations. In many cases, the criminals did not bill for the sham telehealth visit. Instead, the perpetrators billed fraudulently for other items or services, like durable medical equipment or genetic tests. We will continue to vigilantly pursue these "telefraud" schemes and monitor the evolution of scams that may relate to telehealth. As our work and the national conversation continues, OIG believes there is a shared goal: ensuring that telehealth delivers quality, convenient care for patients and is not compromised by fraud. As we continue our COVID-19 oversight and enforcement work, we look forward to providing objective, independent information to stakeholders and policymakers. < Previous News Next News >

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

Consumer Survey Data Supports Use of Virtual Visits Center for Connected Health Policy July 2021 The top reasons patients said they liked having their appointments virtually was because of the ease in attending, reduced chance of getting COVID-19, and that it made scheduling and sharing medical information easier. The Deloitte Center for Technology, Media & Telecommunications released the second edition of their Connectivity and & Mobile Trends 2021 survey, which gathered information from consumers about their relevant experiences during the pandemic. Using an online methodology of over two thousand consumers surveyed in March 2021, the report looks broadly at how the pandemic has influenced innovation and the “digital home,” including the increase in virtual doctor visits and patient telehealth preferences. In regard to telehealth, they found that over half of Americans had a virtual visit, 80% of those patients were satisfied with their experiences, and 62% were likely to schedule future telehealth visits post-pandemic. Almost 30% of consumers reported assisting someone else in their household with a telehealth visit. The top reasons patients said they liked having their appointments virtually was because of the ease in attending, reduced chance of getting COVID-19, and that it made scheduling and sharing medical information easier. While 30% of consumers reported no challenges, others did report they found the lack of human connection challenging, as well as the inability to have their vitals collected which was indicated more frequently among older patients. The report also looked at individual use of “wearables” to advance health and wellness, presuming their ability to support health care providers will continue to grow along with telehealth – although the authors also stated both will likely require the evolution of the regulatory landscape. Interestingly enough, use of wearables was actually found to be mixed during the pandemic and 39% said cost is the primary reason they haven’t bought one. Also, of note for those that had used wearables was that 60% claimed not to be concerned about privacy of their wearable-generated data, which is often raised as one of the main regulatory concerns related to increased innovation in health care. To review additional details about the information gathered, please view the findings in their entirety - https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/articles/6978_TMT-Connectivity-and-mobile-trends/DI_TMT-Connectivity-and-mobile-trends.pdf#page=8. < Previous News Next News >

The changing landscape of telehealth: 4 federal legislative developments Naomi Diaz May 24, 2022 Federal lawmakers have introduced four bills that look to update, continue, renew and expand telehealth access for patients and providers. Below are recent federal developments for policy, regulatory and legal changes related to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to JD Supra: HHS' $16.3 million for Title X family planning program: On May 10, HHS announced it will release $16.3 million in grants for family planning groups to expand telehealth services and infrastructure. The funds will be made available through the American Rescue Plan and will be awarded to 31 Title X family planning programs and facilities. Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act: The bill, introduced May 6, would provide grants to schools and emergency departments to scale up or expand pediatric mental health telehealth access. Women's Health Protection Act: Introduced May 4, this bill would protect a provider's ability to provide abortion services via telehealth. Telehealth Extension and Evaluation Act: This bill, introduced April 26, would extend telehealth flexibilities enabled by Medicare for two years following the COVID-19 pandemic. < Previous News Next News >

CMS Releases Final Calendar Year (CY) 2023 Physician Fee Schedule CCHP November 08, 2022 Last week, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the final rule for the CY 2023 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS). CMS finalized many of their telehealth proposals, which primarily focused on what services will be covered by the program and what will happen immediately following the end of the public health emergency (PHE), including during the 151-day grace period included in the 2022 Budget Act. CMS clarified that the list of services that were temporarily allowed to be delivered via telehealth and reimbursed by Medicare during the PHE, will still be allowed during the 151-day grace period. Additionally, CMS added more of the temporary telehealth PHE list codes to a category of services that would remain through the end of 2023. The rule also reiterates the requirement for an in-person visit in the first 6-months of an initial telehealth mental health visit and every 12 months afterward (with exceptions), and clarifies that won’t be implemented until 152 days after the end of the PHE. They will address the specifics around coding and reporting these types of services through guidance and a sub-regulatory process in the future to ensure a smooth transition after the PHE ends. Stay tuned for an in-depth In Focus write up from CCHP on the 2023 PFS next week, as well as a new factsheet focused on the telehealth elements in the final rule. See original article: https://mailchi.mp/cchpca/its-here-cms-releases-2023-physician-fee-schedule-plus-new-resources-on-telehealth-policy-from-hhs-cchp < 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 >

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 >

CMS Warns Providers to Bill Correctly Center for Connected Health Policy May 2021 OIG is currently conducting several audits on telehealth In mid-April, CMS sent out a Medicare Learning Network (MLN) Connects Newsletter with a reminder to providers to bill correctly for telehealth services. In the short section in their newsletter, CMS cites a 2018 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report that found that there was a significant amount of telehealth claims that were improperly paid, and thus not billed correctly. As the OIG is currently conducting several audits on telehealth, it is possible that they may come to a similar conclusion again. The section also refers providers to several resources to ensure they are billing correctly, including the: Telehealth Services MLN booklet: https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/Downloads/TelehealthSrvcsfctsht.pdf Medicare Claims Processing Manual: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c12.pdf Telehealth Payment Eligibility Analyzer https://data.hrsa.gov/tools/medicare/telehealth List of Covered Telehealth Services https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-General-Information/Telehealth/Telehealth-Codes For policies specific to the public health emergency (PHE), CCHP also recommends providers review the CMS resources listed in the Federal COVID-19 section in CCHP’s Policy Finder, as there are several telehealth flexibilities currently in place as a result of the PHE. CCHP's Policy Finder: https://www.cchpca.org/federal/?category=covid-19&topic=originating-site < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth and Maternal Mental Health Needs Two recent studies show telehealth can help new and expectant mothers. Psychology Today April 30, 2021 Telehealth measures decreased prenatal distress, pregnancy-related anxiety, and postpartum depression. Telemedicine has skyrocketed since the start of the pandemic. According to The New York Times, just short of May 2020, the Johns Hopkins neurology department was seeing 95 percent of patients virtually. The rise in telemedicine to address maternal mental health has also seen unprecedented growth during the pandemic. Meanwhile, Mental Health America states that the mental health needs of Americans have skyrocketed. Anxiety and depression screenings increased nearly four-fold in 2020, from nearly 2,000 screenings per day to roughly 8,000 per day. Women, and in particular pregnant women, are vulnerable to hormonal fluctuations that make them twice as likely to experience depression during their lifetime compared to men. Research in the past year and a half has shown that telehealth can be substantially as effective as in-person care. (Telehealth, more encompassing than telemedicine but inclusive of it, may include only educational components.) With respect to maternal mental health, there are two studies highlighted herein that demonstrate telehealth's promise when it comes to improving maternal mental health in terms of prenatal distress, pregnancy-related anxiety, and the postpartum period. Of note, one of the studies was conducted prior March 11, 2020, or the official start of the pandemic, which makes it non-COVID-19 related. Maternal mental health, or perinatal mental health, is defined by the Maternal Health Task Force as a woman’s mental health during pregnancy and in the postpartum period. The significance of this period is multifold. It includes increased risk of the following: preterm delivery, low birth weight, impaired postnatal infant growth, insecure infant-mother attachments, and suboptimal breastfeeding practices. The first study published in Midwifery in 2021 supports the use of tele-education in improving prenatal distress and pregnancy-related anxiety. Specifically, the Midwifery study showed that “tele-education offered to the pregnant women on pregnancy and birth planning during COVID-19 decreased their prenatal distress and anxiety levels.” What the pregnant women received were phone calls, text messages, and a digital education pdf file, all of which educated women on a variety of topics, including “general methods of protection from coronavirus, coronavirus prevention methods during pregnancy, coronavirus and delivery process, measures to be taken during the coronavirus pandemic and postpartum process, measures to be taken during the coronavirus pandemic and breastfeeding, and how to manage stress, anxiety, and depression in these processes.” The tele-education included a digital pdf file called the “Booklet for Pregnancy and Birth Planning Education during Coronavirus (COVID-19).” All the of the educational content was developed with suggestions from medical and public health experts. A major takeaway from the above Midwifery study is that tele-education is effective in reducing the fears pregnant women have about giving birth as well as about their babies’ health in the context of a pandemic; in summary, prenatal distress and pregnancy-related anxiety were significantly decreased (p-value <0.05). Significantly lower scores on pregnancy-related anxiety questionnaires developed by van den Bergh (1990) and revised by Huizink et al. (2016) demonstrated the effective role played by tele-education. The second study published in Midwifery in 2021 supports the use of telemedicine interventions in treating postpartum depression symptoms. While the study’s timeframe was not during COVID, the results are helpful in understanding the beneficial role telemedicine has played in the past couple of years. Previous research has shown it can be a challenge for postpartum women to seek care for the “baby blues” or depressive symptoms, either of which could be significant. This may be due to perceived stigma, time, financial constraints, transportation, or childcare concerns. In this study, the telemedicine modalities included: telephone support, mobile applications, social media, and websites. This meta-analysis reviewed at least seven randomized controlled trials that largely used cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or psychoeducation to help pregnant women participants. The second Midwifery study concluded that telemedicine interventions “significantly decreased postpartum depression symptoms” and “demonstrated feasibility and acceptability among mothers in the postnatal period.” A major takeaway from the second Midwifery study is that telemedicine appears to be “promising in preventing and improving postpartum depression.” Of note, the study looked at women without a history of mental health conditions. Meanwhile, Hanach et al. highlight the need for larger-scale, future research to figure out the structure, content, and type of providers recommended within future telemedicine interventions. In conclusion, the benefits of telehealth—especially during COVID-19—appear to help women in the prenatal and postpartum phases of pregnancy. While the research is still growing, and quite limited, such positive signs are helpful in understanding the role that technology can play in addressing maternal mental health needs. Future studies that reflect on the benefits of telehealth are vital and will be particularly useful in supporting new and expectant mothers, especially in times of adversity. Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/healthy-mothers-healthy-families-and-healthier-world/202104/telehealth-and-maternal-mental < 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 >

Telehealth 2.0: How Providence is taking its platform to the next level Laura Dyrda June 13, 2022 Telehealth became the prevailing mode for medical providers to see patients during the early days of the pandemic, and while use has leveled off in many areas, virtual care has become a permanent part of the healthcare ecosystem. Hospitals and health systems across the U.S. are now building telehealth, remote patient monitoring and hospital-at-home programs as part of their growth strategies. Patients also prefer telehealth as a convenient way to see their clinicians when an in-person visit isn't necessary. Most health systems have built a functioning telehealth program, but what opportunities are there to refine these programs for a better patient and clinician experience? Todd Czartoski, MD, chief medical technology officer at Renton, Wash.-based Providence, joined the Becker's "Digital Health + Health IT" podcast to talk about where the health system's virtual care program is headed. Click here to subscribe to the podcast and keep an eye out for Dr. Czartoski's episode. Note: Response below is edited lightly for clarity. Question: Where do you see telehealth becoming a better tool for clinicians and patients? How is virtual care at Providence evolving? Dr. Todd Czartoski: Over the last two years, our organization has done just over 4 million [telehealth] visits. For perspective, in 2019 we did 67,000 visits, and in one year we were doing 70,000 visits a week in April and May of 2020. That was a huge shift. Now, turning the lights on and being able to walk into the room is one thing, moving furniture around and optimizing the flow is another. A lot of our focus in the last couple years has been improving the experience for the provider, clinic staff and for the patient. We have really gotten it down to where the basic technical components of [telehealth] work pretty darn well, and we don't have a lot of issues with the connectivity piece. We've added interpreter services, and we've added in the ability to talk to more than one person at a time so you can have a family member in a different part of the country join the visit. Those types of things have been important add-ons, in addition to waiting room functionalities where you can add a survey or information tailored to the patient while they're waiting to see their provider in the virtual waiting room. Those are the things you're going to see continuing to evolve and emerge as additional capabilities. The support staff for the physician or provider's clinic also see their function and role evolving. If you think about a traditional clinic, a lot of those roles require putting patients in the room, checking their vitals, ordering labs or getting patients a follow-up appointment. Some of these things still exist, and some are going to be automated or done as part of a telehealth visit. That's where some of the opportunities are arising to continue to optimize the experience for the patients, staff and provider. You're going to see big trends overall here. Telehealth as a video visit, as a functionality, is somewhat limited. What we've learned is that whether you're a behavioral health specialist, a primary care provider or a subspecialty surgeon … all of those specialist visits can be done safely and effectively with telehealth. It's opened the door for looking at what else could we do beyond just a face-to-face visit. Specifically, the door has been opened for home monitoring. We have a remote patient monitoring solution that we built for COVID-19 home monitoring specifically, and because of the success of that, we've monitored over 30,000 patients up to two weeks who either confirmed or were under suspicion of having COVID-19. That opens the door for what we could do in terms of other types of home monitoring for COPD, diabetes, hypertension or whatever the case may be. That's a big area for growth and development. Finally, moving services outside the hospital, hospital-at-home, is a big initiative for us. We've been working on it for a long time and we're seeing some success. We're rapidly deploying that across our ecosystem and a lot of other health systems are as well. It really checks a lot of the boxes for patient experience; our patients absolutely love it. It's bending the cost curve, improving access and helping improve capacity so we don't have to build more super expensive towers and hospitals. Some of the outcomes with hospital-at-home have been shown to be better than traditional hospitalization when it comes to delirium, falls, length of stay and complications. People actually heal better on their own in a comfortable home environment. Those are a few examples of areas that we're going to see growth in our ecosystem. See original article: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/telehealth/telehealth-2-0-how-providence-is-taking-its-platform-to-the-next-level.html?origin=CIOE&utm_source=CIOE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=1372I2146745E8F < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth Elements in American Rescue Plan COVID Relief Bill Center for Connected Health Policy April 2021 $50 million in grants for local behavioral health services, including via telehealth, and $140 million for information technology, telehealth and electronic health records at the Indian Health Service. March marked the passage of the third major COVID-9 relief bill (HR 1319), titled the American Rescue Plan. While the bill didn’t include significant changes in telehealth policy as past relief legislation has, it did have some nuggets for telehealth. For example, it establishes an Emergency Rural Development for Rural Healthcare Grant pilot that would, among other things, support telehealth programs. The bill also allots $50 million in grants for local behavioral health services, including via telehealth, and sets aside $140 million for information technology, telehealth and electronic health records at the Indian Health Service. To learn more, see the full text of the bill. American Rescue Plan: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1319/BILLS-117hr1319enr.pdf Indian Health Services: https://www.ihs.gov/ < Previous News Next News >

Elo and 19Labs Partner To Offer Next Generation Telehealth Kiosks PR Newswire and 19 Labs July 2021 The partnership allows pharmacies, schools, and rural communities to go beyond just video calls and deploy eClinics with smart diagnostic devices and remote monitoring. The hospital-at-home trend is rapidly changing the healthcare industry. COVID-19 has accelerated telehealth technology's rate of innovation, and the industry has advanced by more than five years in just five months. Healthcare companies are now moving quickly to provide care in new locations and serve new use cases, bringing healthcare access not just to the home but also to other places like rural communities, schools, and pharmacies. 19Labs and Elo are working together to bring eClinics to these new locations globally. 19Labs' GALE eClinics are next generation point-of-care platforms that seamlessly integrate leading mobile and healthcare technologies into cost-effective and smart solutions such as telehealth carts, healthcare kiosks, or portable telehealth kits. They are highly secure, easily deployable, and can be operated by anyone with minimal training. "19Labs' eClinics enable our customers to easily deploy enhanced telehealth using the world's most advanced diagnostic devices: from ultrasound, ECGs, and even blood pressure," said Dan Ludwick, Chief Product Officer, Elo. "The eClinics do more than just video calls. They bring together Zoom, Amwell, custom wellness applications, and remote patient monitoring into a solution that can be easily used by anyone, which can drastically reduce operating and deployment costs." "Elo has been a great partner," says Ram Fish, 19Labs CEO & Founder. "They are a dynamic, innovative company with global reach, and we are happy to work with them in making healthcare more accessible worldwide. Their Android-based touchscreen systems are beautiful, well-engineered, and provide a unique, affordable solution to deploying kiosks in different form factors within the healthcare industry. Elo's tablets are built-to-last and highly reliable. Their commercial-grade hardware is complemented by great Android implementation. These make Elo's solutions perfect for enhanced telehealth." In Oaxaca, Mexico, the state's health ministry has been rapidly deploying 19Labs' eClinics. Dr. Lorena Ocampo, Chief Coordinator of Telemedicine at Oaxaca's Ministry of Health, says the next generation healthcare kiosks will significantly increase healthcare accessibility and quality in the region. "It's been a pleasure working with 19Labs and Elo. The impact these units have on the healthcare conditions within the community, and the ability to easily access advanced medical care, radically improves the quality of service that we are able to provide." About Elo As a leading global supplier of interactive solutions, #EloIsEverywhere. To date, we have deployed more than 25 million installations in over 80 countries. A new Elo touchscreen is installed every 21 seconds, on average, somewhere in the world. Built on a unified architecture, Elo's broad portfolio allows our customers to easily Choose, Configure and Connect & Control to create a unique experience. Choose from all-in-one systems, open-frame monitors and touchscreen monitors ranging from 10 to 70 inches. Configure with our unique Elo Edge Connect peripherals that allow use-specific solutions. Connect & Control with EloView®, a secure cloud-based platform for Android-powered devices. EloView enables secure deployment and management of a large network of interactive systems designed to reduce operating costs while increasing up-time and security. Consumers can find Elo touchscreen solutions in self-service kiosks, point-of-sale terminals, interactive signage, gaming machines, hospitality systems, point-of-care displays and transportation applications—to name a few. Learn more at EloTouch.com. About 19Labs 19Labs is the creator of GALE, Next Generation Point-of-Care platform for pharmacies, schools, and rural communities. GALE brings together "best of breed" diagnostic technologies from industry leaders like Zoom, Elo, Amwell, Eko, Samsung Mobile, MIR, Omron, Viasat, and many others in one smart, efficient, and cost-effective platform. It was designed from the ground up to be operated by non-healthcare professionals, in locations with limited infrastructure and optimized for low bandwidth and intermittent connectivity. To learn more about GALE, please visit www.19labs.com/platform. < Previous News Next News >

The Punctuated Equilibrium Of Telemedicine: Digital Health Solutions And Government’s Role Richard Schwabacher September 14, 2022 As Covid-19 took hold in our communities, the increase in demand and need for telehealth and other virtual care options accelerated at an unprecedented pace. As Covid-19 took hold in our communities, the increase in demand and need for telehealth and other virtual care options accelerated at an unprecedented pace. Action was taken at the state and federal levels, as well as by payers and employers, to make telehealth easily accessible. Nearly overnight, swift changes in payment, reimbursement, coverage and licensing policies were made as the pandemic disrupted every facet of life. Telehelth benefits have proven to be popular, so much so that Congress recently voted 416-12 to extend benefits. Simultaneously, investment in the digital health market has soared to a record $29.1 billion in 2021 to transform a healthcare system that could support digital capabilities. Patients, already accustomed to digital services, like banking, quickly adapted to the change. When radical change occurs in a short period of time and then finds a new balance, we call that a punctuated equilibrium. With respect to telemedicine, we don’t expect to return to life as we knew it before Covid-19 or, at the other end of the spectrum, settle in a place where high rates of telemedicine adoption were during the surges. Ultimately, there will be a new equilibrium that nestles between those two polar opposites. Despite overwhelming investment and adoption of virtual care and telehealth options by patients and providers, barriers still exist. There are specific actions government and businesses can take and should, to support healthcare programs born out of the pandemic—but only if the economics and incentives are aligned. Spotlight Moment For Laboratory Diagnostics Laboratory diagnostics has always been a critical component of healthcare—diagnosis, prevention, management, and so forth—but the pandemic put lab testing and access to it squarely in the spotlight. It became an urgent need that nearly everyone had. The value and role of laboratory diagnostics cannot be understated. According to the CDC, 70% of high-quality care depends on diagnostic testing to make medical decisions by equipping providers with the necessary information to properly address patient needs. Diagnostics are most often the healthcare tools providers rely on when diagnosing, managing and treating a variety of diseases and conditions; for instance, 12 of the 15 most clinically and economically significant disease categories in the U.S. dictate using laboratory diagnostics as the standard of care. Lack of access to laboratory diagnostics for patients has wide-ranging effects, including implications for medication nonadherence that will continue to grow as the burden of chronic diseases grows. The Role Of Government Policy The patchwork approach to solving these problems will not suffice in the long run, which is why the role of government in the sustained expansion of virtual care services is so important. Healthcare policy ought to keep pace with the evolution of healthcare technology. It’s encouraging to see the current administration invest in and promote innovation with information technology to better serve community health. The investment not only includes $34 billion initially invested through the HITECH sections of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act but also many billions of dollars expended by U.S. industries, including laboratories. Three specific policies can help direct and reward innovation leading to better outcomes. • Ensure that all patient data needed by clinicians for individual and population care is available. While the CURES Act and the ONC CURES Act Final Rules aim to prevent data blocking, business practices among providers and payers sometimes serve as effective barriers to serving patients in their communities. ONC and CMS can refine the rules to ensure data is available in all EHRs from all appropriate sources, facilitating timely availability of all patient data wherever it is needed. • CMS should develop companion coding for telemedicine services and home-based specimen collection for lab testing. The value of telehealth is compromised if the patient must travel to a distant site for lab testing in support of the telehealth intervention. • While the government can mandate that providers report specified data, the results from home-administered testing are not available in standardized electronic formats and do not get reported. This has created barriers to public health responses in communities most at risk. What Can Businesses Do? There are ways for businesses and the government to collaborate that can improve the telemedicine landscape that benefits patients and consumers, as the clear, quantifiable health outcomes speak for themselves and can help influence further adoption and integration. For instance, the number of Medicare beneficiary telehealth visits increased 63-fold in 2020 to more than 52.7 million. While at the Mayo Clinic, ambulatory management of Covid-19 showed effective use of remote patient monitoring with a 78.9% engagement rate. These are just two examples that illustrate the increased adoption and success of making telemedicine an integral part of healthcare protocols. Companies that move to a value-based incentive model from a fee-for-service model and move toward reimbursement models that reward quality can be an alternative to the status quo. Telemedicine can be part of the solution when addressing inequities in access to care, including specialty care and at-risk populations. We already know that lack of access to laboratory diagnostics for patients has wide-ranging effects that will continue to grow as the burden of chronic diseases grows. Virtual Care Is Here To Stay Digital healthcare models are changing the landscape of the healthcare system as we know it, and this is good news for patients and providers. The changes empower patients to take more control of their health, give them more options that cater more to their needs, lower costs for “virtual-first” or “hybrid care” healthcare plans and improve access. Our collective experience during the pandemic has shown that people need healthcare and clear access points. The expanded use, adoption and successful integration of digital healthcare solutions have been received positively and have encouraged more participation. We need to continue to expand telehealth and remote options with policy that supports it—to backtrack on the progress we’ve made would be a mistake. See original article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/09/14/the-punctuated-equilibrium-of-telemedicine-digital-health-solutions-and-governments-role/?sh=523fd49e2deb < Previous News Next News >

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

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 >

The 13 telehealth platforms physicians use the most Katie Adams March 24, 2022 Telephone and Zoom are the two telehealth platforms physicians use the most, according to survey results released March 23 by the American Medical Association. Between Nov. 1 and Dec. 31, the AMA presented 1,657 physicians with a list of telehealth platforms and asked them to identify which ones they have used. Here are those platforms, along with the number of physicians who use them: 1. Audio-only telephone visits (723) 2. Zoom (600) 3. Doximity Video (439) 4. EHR telehealth module or tools (433) 5. Doxy.me (344) 6. Telehealth vendor (340) 7. FaceTime (269) 8. Patient Portal (234) 9. Microsoft Teams (92) 10. Texting (89) 11. Skype (48) 12. Remote patient monitoring tools (46) 13. Asynchronous messaging app (30) Copyright © 2022 Becker's Healthcare. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Cookie Policy. Linking and Reprinting Policy. < Previous News Next News >

New Study Pitches Telehealth as Safer Than the Doctor’s Office Eric Wicklund, mhealthintelligence August 2021 In a nod to the value of telehealth in primary care, researchers have found that a person visiting the doctor's office shortly after a visit from someone with the flu has a much higher chance of getting the flu as well. A new study makes a strong case for telehealth as an alternative to the doctor’s office, particularly during flu season. Researchers from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School and the university’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and athenahealth have found that people who visit their doctor’s office after someone infected with the flu has visited that office are much more likely to come down with the flu themselves. That same increase wasn’t seen in people seeking treatment for issues like urinary tract infections. The study, published this month in Health Affairs, suggests that primary care providers embrace virtual visits as a means of reducing that chance of infection. “It’s a widely accepted fact that patients can acquire infections in hospital settings, but we show that infection transmission can happen when you visit your doctor’s office, too,” Hannah Neprash, an assistant professor at UM’s School of Public Health and one of the study’s authors, said in a news release issued by the university. “Our findings highlight the importance of infection control practices and continued access to telemedicine services, as health care begins to return to pre-pandemic patterns,” she added. "In-person outpatient care for influenza may promote nontrivial transmission of these viruses. This may be true for other endemic respiratory illnesses too, including COVID-19, but more research is needed." The study, which tracked office visits from a national sample of insurance claims and EHR data compiled by athenahealth, is reportedly the first to connect the dots between office visits and the progression of a flu outbreak. According to that data, patients visits their primary care provider were almost 32 percent more likely to contract the flu within two weeks if that PCP had seen someone with the flu within the previous two weeks. In addition, that office would then serve as an incubator for the flu, infecting more patients over time. Neprash and her fellow researchers say their study supports the need for “triage to telemedicine” policies in clinics and medical offices when a patient shows signs of a contagious viral infection like the flu. “Given that upper respiratory symptoms are among the most common reasons for any patient to see a physician, these results highlight the importance of protocols to mitigate the risk for transmission,” the study notes. “Clinically, many of these patients will be at low risk for complications with telemedicine evaluation.” It also suggests that care providers develop “strict infection control practices” whenever a patient showing signs of the flu or a similar virus need to be seen in person. This would include mask-wearing, hand hygiene and putting patients in separate exam rooms that can be decontaminated after a visit. Finally, the study makes a case for continued support for telehealth coverage at a rate equal to in-person care. “Lawmakers in Congress are actively debating the future of telemedicine policy and how it should be reimbursed after the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes,” the study notes. “It is possible that telemedicine reimbursement after the pandemic will be restricted to certain specialties or diagnoses or reimbursed at a rate low enough that many clinicians decide to forgo telemedicine as a mechanism for care delivery. Our results argue that clinically, for infection control, telemedicine should remain a financially viable option for clinicians to provide care for viral respiratory symptoms. < Previous News Next News >