Payer reimbursement for telehealth, telemedicine gains in Delaware, Connecticut (US)

Two states–Connecticut and Delaware–are now requiring private commercial insurers to cover telemedicine and telehealth services at parity with in-person visits. Connecticut was first, signed into law on 22 June but not starting till 1 January 2016. It covers not only video consults but distance care delivered both synchronously and asynchronously, such as store and forward transfers, and covers remote patient monitoring. It specifically omits audio-only consults, email, texting and fax (!). The Connecticut law also requires parity of payment with in-person visits to prevent lower reimbursements. Delaware’s law was signed 7 July to take effect immediately, and based on the summary is similar in breadth to Connecticut’s. Delaware is now the 29th state to enact telehealth/telemedicine reimbursement legislation. Articles written by members of the Foley & Lardner law firm. JD Supra, Lexology

On the Federal front, Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) and three other members of the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 2948, the Medicare Telehealth Parity Act of 2015. It would remove the current geographic restrictions for telehealth (in the Federal definition including telemedicine), expand services, expand telehealth/RPM for additional chronic conditions and expand home care service into hospice and dialysis. It is a rework of last session’s H.R. 5380 and is at very early days having gone to a Congressional committee. Unfortunately its passage has a snowball-in-July chance with giving it zero chance of enactment. Rep. Thompson’s website, FierceHealthIT, ATA-Jonathan Linkous support statement.

Previously in TTA: Telehealth reimbursement makes legislative progress in Texas, US House

Concise analysis of mHealth regulatory environment (US)

If you–like most rational people–have some confusion in deciphering the current FDA state of affairs as it applies to mHealth, this summary from major law firm Foley & Lardner will be helpful. Written by special counsel for healthcare/mobile health Monica R. Chmielewski, it defines in few words FDA’s classifications, which mHealth technologies are, and which are not, subject to FDA oversight. In particular, MDDS (medical device data systems) were recently downgraded from Class III (the greatest oversight with pre-market approval) to Class I. FDA has also recently finalized recommendations in a guidance document for medical device manufactures for managing cybersecurity risks. mHealth Technology – Development in an Uncertain Regulatory Climate (Health Care Law Today)