What’s next for telehealth in the (almost) aftermath–and rating the US states on policies

January 8, 2022 | by

crystal-ballWhat’s in that cloudy crystal ball?  Last year, especially the first half, saw telehealth acquisitions, stock prices and valuations hit the roof. The roof proved to be high but sturdy, as they bounced right back down, not unexpectedly. 

But gee whiz, Fast Company’s article seems to be shocked, shocked at all this, calling it a bubble. This Editor sincerely doubts that any investor that tracked telehealth over the last 10 years would have NOT expected this ride on the rollercoaster after the urgent care and practice offices reopened starting in mid-2020 and worked slowly through 2021. The rebound, as with health insurance payers, took a few months to work through into 2021. Telehealth usage in 2021 receded steadily to single digits, and at last report to just above 4% of claims as of October 2021 (FAIR Health US claims data).  What remains is the continued dominance of mental health–62% for mental health codes. It’s turned out that Babylon Health‘s SPAC was the last of the major action for 2021, getting in under the wire in October. 

It’s obvious that investors will be more realistic in assessing telehealth companies, looking at the areas that sustained telehealth usage, such as behavioral health. Another surprising niche is LGBTQ telehealth–Grand Rounds’ buy of Included Health in May, which then led to the entire company, including Doctor on Demand, adopting the name [TTA 20 Oct].

The other move that telehealth companies are making is to take more of the patient than a few virtual visits. They’ve moved into offering primary care teams to patients in employer plans (Babylon360 and Teladoc’s Primary360). Amazon Care moved into in-home health and clinics with Crossover Health. Amwell acquired SilverCloud for expanding behavioral health capabilities internationally, and stuck a toe into care management with their Converge platform and acquiring startup Conversa‘s health coaching app. The flip side is retail health migrating into in-person and virtual primary care–CVS Health and Walgreens, via VillageMD.

What also held telehealth back for over a decade of less than 1% was reimbursement by Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. The pandemic broke through that barrier. While it has narrowed considerably, CMS will still reimburse audio-only telehealth for behavioral health services, addiction treatment, and in-home health visits. State policies on telehealth practices can positively influence telehealth growth for patients and physicians. Free-market organizations Reason Foundation, Cicero Institute, and the Pioneer Institute have reported on all 50 on several policy metrics: 

  • In-person requirements
  • Modality neutral (asynchronous or synchronous, technology including audio, video, store and forward, and remote patient monitoring.)
  • No state barriers
  • All providers can use telehealth
  • Independent practice (including nurse-practitioners)
  • No coverage or payment mandates
  • Cross-state compacts

Rating the States on Telehealth Best Practices

As practices reopen, telemedicine visits continue to plunge from 69% to 21%: Epic (US)

September 2, 2020 | by

The extreme high tide has receded–but still way up than before the pandemic.  The Epic Health Research Network (yes, that Epic EHR), updated its earlier study through 8 May [TTA 22 July] to compare in-office to telehealth visits through 12 July. The trend that EHRN spotted (as well as Commonwealth Fund/Phreesia/Harvard) continued with telemedicine visits declining as practices reopened. As of mid-July, telehealth visits, as a  percentage of national ambulatory visits, declined to 21.2 percent compared to 78.8 percent in-office. 

The new EHRN study used a broader sampling than previously. They surveyed healthcare providers of data: 37 healthcare organizations representing 203 hospitals and 3,513 clinics in 50 states. The decline in telehealth visits noted in early May continued, with May finishing with a national 50/50 split.

But in context, telehealth visits immediately before the COVID-19 pandemic were a whopping .01 percent. 

Regionally, the Northeast leads in July telehealth visits with 25 percent. The South has the least adoption of telehealth with only 13 percent. In terms of total office visits, neither the South nor West have rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, whereas the Northeast and Midwest have.

The key to the future of the telehealth bubble bath is if telehealth usage versus in-person stabilizes for several months. But there’s another factor which has come about through higher telehealth usage. Noted in our July article was speculation on the reasons why the sudden decline, other than practices reopening, most of which pointed to practice training, reimbursement, and older/sicker patients falling into the smartphone/digital divide. The STAT article has statements from telehealth providers which are quite bubbly and quotable, with the CEO of MDLive stating that new bookings are up 300 percent and mental health hasn’t declined. But a problem now surfacing is providing patients with the right care at the right time–and fitting it into the office schedule. What visits can best be handled as telehealth and which require an in-person visit? This Editor recalls that Zipnosis, a white-labeled telehealth system we haven’t heard from in a while, incorporated for health system applications a triage intake which would direct the patient to the right level of care. Can this be rolled out in a similar way to the practice level?

The global ‘state of telehealth’ according to Dr Topol: work in progress

July 20, 2016 | by

Are we approaching a ‘tipping point’ in telehealth and telemedicine within 5 to 10 years? While telemedicine (doctor-patient, hospital-hospital video consults) and even telehealth (patient monitoring generally at home) are becoming more common, Drs Eric Topol and E. Ray Dorsey see the tip coming within the decade in their New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM July, subscription required) article, moving from the early adopters to the majority. But there are still substantial barriers: interstate licensing, fragmented care, spotty state and Federal reimbursement including Medicare, wireless coverage enabling mobile monitoring, the future of the doctor-patient relationship, even the potential for narcotic abuse. They also need to move into the private sector. Somewhat misleading are the 2 million telehealth visits counted by the Veterans Health Administration; it includes the larger programs in store-and-forward information transfer and clinical video consults versus in-home telehealth.

Three trends they see paving the way to ubiquity:

  1. Moving beyond providing access to being driven by convenience and reducing cost
  2. Not just for acute conditions, but for monitoring chronic and episodic conditions (although vital signs monitoring, which is the core meaning of telehealth, has been doing so since the early 2000s)
  3. Migration from hospitals and satellite clinics to in-home and mobile applications

While the two doctors caution on risks, including breaches, they see telemedicine and telehealth increasing the delivery of care in the next ten years and spreading globally. Healthcare Informatics, Qmed

State by State report on telehealth laws and policies (US)

May 3, 2016 | by

A comprehensive scan of telehealth laws and Medicaid [grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/State-telehealth-laws.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]program policies is available from the recently released report from the Center for Connected Health Policy, part of the Public Health Institute, a California based non-profit. This fourth annual review, State Telehealth Laws and Medicaid Program Policies,  provides a current summary of telehealth policies and laws in all the states and the District of Columbia.

As we have covered in many previous articles, states are actively pursuing legislation to implement their own set of telehealth policies. This report is supposedly an up to date summary of these laws and regulations as of March 2016.

Some significant findings highlighted by the authors are
– 47 states and Washington DC provide reimbursements for some form of telemedicine video conferencing. This number is unchanged from last year.
– 9 states reimburse for store and forward services (e.g. medical images, documents and pre-recorded videos. Primarily sent between medical professionals)
– 16 states offer reimbursement for remote patient monitoring, unchanged from last year

The report is complemented by an interactive map located here.

2016: will telehealth catch on or stagnate, due to factors out of control?

November 25, 2015 | by
[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Robert-Graham-Center-logo.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]Updated. Reviewing the Robert Graham Center study summarized by Editor Chrys last week, René Quashie of Epstein Becker Green, perhaps the leading law firm in the health tech area, opines that despite the great progress made by telehealth (telemedicine/virtual consults, but also remote patient monitoring), “state legal and regulatory issues, reimbursement, and provider training and education continue to be serious barriers to wider adoption of telehealth. And until the landscape evolves to address these barriers, telehealth adoption is likely to stagnate despite the great promise of telehealth holds as a tool to improve quality and access.” Yes, that old FBQ* (actually the top two) continues to be as true now as five years ago. While in closing Mr Quashie puts his trust in the ‘pull’ factor of consumers and patients “who will continue to demand better access and more innovative delivery models outside the conventional office visit,” this Editor is far less sanguine, despite having used a virtual consult app recently. It was turned to more out of sheer frustration–time pressure (work, travel), being unable to secure a timely visit with a specialist (no one seems to be taking new patients!) despite good (non-Obamacare) medical coverage, and a condition which was eminently photographable (plus $40 at hand). National Law Review  * The Five Big Questions (FBQs)–who pays, how much, who’s looking at the data, who’s actioning it, how data is integrated into patient records.

Then again, if you read Health Populi and believe Gallup’s polling (based on a slightly skewed question), a majority of Americans aren’t thinking about delivery models or telehealth at all. They’re unhappy, and would like to hand the whole hot mess over to the government when asked if “government is responsible for ensuring that people have health insurance.” Yet the Affordable Care Act, now two years in, was supposed to do exactly that by forcing everyone to pay for a healthcare policy or else pay a punitive tax. Too many did the math; the tax penalty was cheaper, especially for those Young ‘n’ Healthy Invincibles with slim purses and other things to spend on. They were the ones who were expected to pony up premiums, use few services and generally prop up the system.

[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/shockedshocked.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]Now the American populace are shocked, shocked to find that out-of-pocket costs are way up and access is down. The same Health Populi article cites Fair Health’s spring 2015 consumer survey, finding that 33 percent of American patients felt that their out-of-pocket costs were ‘much more than expected’, with an additional 17 percent in the ‘somewhat’ category–a total of 50 percent. The contradiction of government control versus spending (and actuarial) reality is, in this Editor’s opinion, not going to be solved easily or well.

As to the wisdom of government involvement, there’s another developing and embarrassing ACA Big Fail.  (more…)

Telehealth reimbursement makes legislative progress in Texas, US House

May 29, 2015 | by

In Texas, telehealth reimbursement as part of the state Medicaid program passed their House resoundingly (120 to 5!) and moved to the state Senate. (In Texas, if your bill makes it through the scrum that is their House, the Senate moves expeditiously.)  HB (House Bill) 2641 would authorize Texas’ Health & Human Services Commission (HHSC) to extend reimbursement for home telemonitoring (telehealth) services under the state Medicaid program from September this year for four years. Health care providers in Medicaid would be reimbursed for review and transmission of electronic health information. The caveat of course is that it is ‘feasible and cost effective’–it is designed to be expenditure neutral. The bill also includes extensive stipulations on health information exchanges based on national standards (ANSI) as well as amending the health and safety code for immunizations and other health conditions. The ‘criminal offense’ pertains to protected health information breaches as a misdemeanor. Telehealth inclusion in Medicaid is positive as this state insurance plan serves the poorest and often sickest, as well as many federal Medicare ‘dual eligibles’. Texas, being a large state, also sets trends (including the most reluctant to adopt cross-state telemedicine licensure.)  Text of HB2641

Would that telehealth reimbursement have the same chance in that large, exceedingly deliberative body called the US House of Representatives. HR2066, the Telehealth Enhancement Act of 2015, is similar to a bill that expired in committee in the last session. It was introduced (more…)

Telemedicine getting out of the waiting room–perhaps

October 13, 2014 | by

Will reimbursement by insurance payers and private employers (presumably self-insured) and a greater comfort level with the video consult mean that telemedicine will finally step out of the waiting room? This Economist article (free registration may be required) with high points from a recent Rome conference seems to not be able to make up its mind, though it tries to be positive. Taking a comparative view, Israel leads with ‘relatively lax guidelines’, with doctors able to e-prescribe and perform referrals to specialists online. China’s health-care reform focuses on telemedicine“, but Peteris Zilgalvis, a health official at the European Commission pointedly states “If you have a chaotic system and add technology, you get a chaotic system with technology” (Editor’s emphasis). The US is somewhere in between (more…)