• linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    Telemedicine policies expand access, dictate reimbursement


    Reimbursement issues

    Within each state, laws must also dictate if and how physicians may provide telehealth services. By 2017, nearly every state codified the process to establish a valid physician-patient relationship via telehealth and prevent payers from mandating an in-person visit before telehealth use. But the types of eligible services and the payment structure vary from state to state.

    Increasingly, states implement pay parity laws that require payers to reimburse telehealth services to the same extent as in-person services. As of January 2017, 31 states and the District of Columbia require private payer parity and 20 states and D.C. require Medicaid parity. Alaska and Arizona are the only states that impose partial parity, where not all services are covered. In Arizona, legislators have come to add services on a piecemeal basis. Coverage of telemedicine consultation services for trauma, burn, cardiology, infectious diseases, mental health disorders, neurologic diseases, and dermatology took effect on Jan. 1, 2015. Pulmonology services were added in 2016, and this year, the Arizona Urological Society (AZUS) led a campaign to include urology to the list of telemedicine services that must be given insurance payment parity.

    Have you read: Policymakers consider intersex surgical standards

    During a stakeholders meeting convened by a state senator, AZUS President Jason Jameson, MD, spoke in favor of adding the specialty to the list of those covered by parity. He pointed out there is a shortage of urologists in Arizona, and he cited studies that show telemedicine saved patients an average of 277 miles in driving and $200. Even more important, Dr. Jameson said that telemedicine represents an opportunity to improve patient access and care.

    A representative of an insurance company complained about the piecemeal approach and opposed adding another coverage mandate. He suggested that the best course of action was to leave telemedicine reimbursements up to insurance companies and providers who would negotiate in-network rates. Although the bill enjoyed considerable support in the Arizona House, progress stalled in the Senate. "We will continue working with insurance providers and Arizona legislators,” Dr. Jameson promised, “and hope to come up with an agreement during the next session.”

    National laws and regulations

    At the national level, several laws and regulations restrict Medicare reimbursement for telehealth. Rare bipartisan support is emerging, however, to remove these roadblocks. The CONNECT for Health Act (S.1016) would expand remote patient monitoring programs for people with chronic conditions, define reimbursable CMS telehealth codes, give HHS the authority to lift restrictions on telehealth, and establish new allowances for global and bundled payment models. According to Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), one of six bipartisan cosponsors, "[Telehealth] expands access to care, lowers costs, and helps more people stay healthy. Our bipartisan bill will help change the way patients get the care they need, improving the health care system for both patients and health care providers."

    The Telehealth Innovation and Improvement Act (S.787), introduced by Sens. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Gary Peters (D-MI), requires the Department of Health and Human Services to allow hospitals to test telehealth services through the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMI). Additionally, it directs CMI to have an independent evaluation conducted to assess the telehealth models for cost, effectiveness, and improvement in quality of care without increasing the cost of delivery. If the telehealth model meets cost, effectiveness, and quality of care goals, then the model will be covered through the greater Medicare program. In a press release, the sponsors point to Medicare's current restrictions as "setting a poor industry standard, discouraging innovation, and restricting access to specialized services."

    Bills in Congress proposing telemedicine expansion and reimbursement

    CHRONIC Care Act

    CONNECT for Health Act

    FAST Act

    Hallways to Health Act

    HEART Act

    Telehealth Innovation and Improvement Act

    VETS Act

    Expanding telehealth services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is also the subject of legislation introduced by lawmakers of both political parties. Currently, the VA may only perform at-home telehealth services when the patient and provider are located in the same state. The VETS Act (H.R.2123 / S.925) addresses these barriers by allowing VA health professionals to practice telemedicine across state lines if they are qualified and practice within the scope of their authorized federal duties.

    Enhancing care, improving outcomes, and managing costs must be paired with protecting licensing standards as patients, physicians, payers, and policymakers integrate telemedicine into the health care delivery system. Inconsistent laws, regulations, and payment policies threaten to undermine the great promise of this technology. Work force shortages, maldistribution of physicians, and cutting-edge technology that emulates human senses place urologists in a unique position to lead this revolution in the practice of medicine. To ensure practical and safety-conscious policies are implemented, the grassroots must be mobilized to make their voices heard.

    More from Urology Times:

    Telemedicine: Reimbursement in fee-for-service, quality models

    Burnout: How can it be prevented?

    Burnout rate lower than believed, but still too high

    Subscribe to Urology Times to get monthly news from the leading news source for urologists.



    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • No comments available