Perspectives: The most aggressive AI adoption in healthcare is happening off the books

June 23, 2026 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s topic concerns how unapproved ‘off the books’ AI tools, also known as ‘shadow AI’, are becoming widespread in healthcare organizations. Difficult to track, they may save an individual’s valuable time but open the organization to data breaches and misuse of private data. The author, Errol Weiss, is chief security officer of Health-ISAC (Health Information Sharing and Analysis Center). His information security experience includes the NSA and senior positions at Citigroup and Bank of America. Health-ISAC is a non-profit organization based in Orlando, Florida that is dedicated to protecting the global health sector from cyber and physical threats through real-time alerts, collaboration, and usable intelligence.

Ask a hospital executive how their AI adoption is progressing, and you’ll hear about pilot programs, governance committees, and carefully vetted vendor deployments.

While illustrative, that answer is incomplete because most healthcare organizations have little visibility into how much AI is actually being used without approval. Clinical staff, administrators, and operations teams are independently adopting AI tools to draft documentation, optimize scheduling, assist with coding, and communicate with patients without waiting for approval.

There’s little point in blaming them: With technology advancing at a breakneck pace, today’s state-of-the-art will be obsolete next month. Who has the time to wait for months-long review processes?

For at least the past 40 years, whenever employees found IT’s procurement bureaucracy too slow, they simply implemented or signed up for software or cloud services by sidetracking corporate procedures and got on with their work. This is known as “shadow IT”, and organizations have come up with entire playbooks and best practices to limit its effects.

But its successor, “shadow AI”, requires a different approach simply because this new revolution in technology doesn’t work the same way as most software does. It doesn’t help that shadow AI usage is already widespread: A December 2025 Wolters Kluwer survey of more than 500 healthcare professionals found that 40 percent had encountered unauthorized AI tools in their workplace, nearly one in five admitted to using them, and one in ten had used an unauthorized tool for direct patient care.

Why governance keeps losing the race

The fact is, the people using these tools are behaving rationally. Healthcare staff operate under continuous and heavy workloads, so if a tool cuts a two-hour documentation task to 40 minutes, you’re fighting a losing battle if you expect employees to ignore the benefits of AI. Per the Wolters Kluwer data, half of those using unapproved tools cited faster workflows as their primary reason, and a quarter pointed to better functionality than anything their employer had sanctioned.

Meanwhile, the institutional approval machinery moves at its own pace. Enterprise approval channels were designed for software whose deployment cycles took quarters, and accounted for contracts, security reviews, and integration planning. A consumer AI tool requires a browser and an email address.

This is harder to contain than shadow IT ever was

Shadow IT, for all its headaches, could at least be tracked. An employee signing up for an unapproved file-sharing service needed to create an account and upload a file, leaving a trail security teams could identify and act on. Network telemetry and endpoint management tools like EDR could be used to track data stored on shadow IT devices. The behavior looked similar for most tools, so organizations eventually built the muscle to spot it. 

In contrast, AI tools encourage different user behavior because they work differently — the user interface is more conversational, dynamic and useful in different ways. Staff who would never think to upload a patient’s file to a third-party service may not feel so hesitant about typing a patient’s diagnosis into a chatbot because it doesn’t register as a data transfer; it registers as asking for help.

Regardless, the compliance risk and data exposure are similar. When information about a patient is uploaded to an AI model not constrained by a contractual agreement, the organization has no control over where that data is sent, how long it is stored, and whether it will be used to train future tools and AI models. There is no file to retrieve and no audit trail to close.

The costs are real: IBM’s most recent breach research found that shadow AI added an average of $670,000 to breach costs, and healthcare already carries the highest breach costs of any sector.

Govern the current instead of damming it

What can leaders do to keep shadow AI usage under control? One obvious answer is to flat-out ban such tools, but the problem with doing that without offering alternatives is that employees will find other ways to use them. It also turns compliance teams and clinical staff into adversaries, which is the exact opposite of what an organization wants to accomplish.

It’s more useful and realistic to establish a governance framework that gives this energy a sanctioned channel. Here are a few steps to consider:

  • First, get the lay of the land. Map where and how much shadow AI your organization has.
  • Next, build a process that lets clinical and administrative teams submit AI tools for review and receive a decision much faster — think days, not weeks.
  • Pair this with a clear policy definition of shadow AI, and educate your employees on why a consumer chatbot and an approved enterprise tool are not interchangeable.

Vendors and contractors are a part of this problem, too. They move through many hospital workflows and touch patient data, leaving the hospital organization to own the compliance exposure regardless of whose employee created it. Vendor assessments and contracts must change to account for how AI tools affect end-user behavior and control what data leaves your supply chain.

Thankfully, no organization needs to solve all these problems alone. Through information-sharing communities, security teams can compare and share notes on how their peers are detecting unsanctioned AI use, and which governance models hold up under real conditions.

Shadow AI grows because there’s a gap between what staff need and what the organization provides. That gap widens every month that governance stands still. Leaders must act now to shape the gap. Those who wait will eventually be mapping it from breach forensics instead.

Perspectives: Virtual Care, AI, and the Future of Autism Therapy

June 17, 2026 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s topic concerns how technology can increase access to outcomes-based behavioral health care for underserved families, improving the progress and effectiveness of care for those children with autism. Our author, Jeff Beck, LCSW, is the co-founder and CEO of AnswersNow, which provides virtual support based on applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy. Mr. Beck spent the first 15 years of his career working directly with children in low-income and rural communities.

Recent reporting in The New York Times is just the latest to detail allegations of fraud, abuse, and excessive billing across parts of the autism therapy industry. But this story was especially troubling because of the stories of the children and families caught in the middle. It’s a reminder that the challenges in autism therapy today are human ones with real and urgent consequences. 

At the center of these issues is healthcare’s longstanding fee-for-service reimbursement system, which incentivizes autism providers to bill for therapy hours rather than patient progress. Now, the ongoing surge in autism diagnoses and the continued scarcity of highly trained clinicians have created an even greater opportunity for those same providers to ramp up their billings and lock children into extended cycles of therapy without producing meaningful improvement.

The encouraging news is that technology is changing that calculus.

For years, healthcare leaders have talked about shifting from fee-for-service reimbursement toward outcomes-based care. In autism therapy, that means aligning families, providers, and payers around a holistic goal to help children make progress faster and more efficiently. The challenge has been how to measure outcomes, scale care, and manage costs.

Today, virtual care and artificial intelligence are making all three increasingly achievable.

Virtual Care Solves More Than Access

Telehealth is often described as a convenience. However, in autism therapy, virtual care is creating entirely new ways to deliver higher-quality care.

  1. Virtual care expands access. Traditional autism therapy relies heavily on centralized clinics, forcing families to travel long distances and organize their schedules around available appointments. In many communities, waitlists stretch for months or even more than a year. Virtual therapy removes geography as a barrier and allows families to receive support directly from home.
  2. Virtual care helps solve a workforce problem. The shortage of Board-Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs), our industry’s most highly trained therapists, is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Virtual care allows a BCBA in one location to support families hundreds of miles away, dramatically expanding access without requiring a corresponding increase in the workforce. It also means that, rather than spending large portions of their day supervising less-trained staff, BCBAs can work more directly with children and caregivers. More one-on-one interaction can lead to more personalized care and stronger therapeutic relationships. It also has the added benefit of boosting clinician retention rates. 
  3. Virtual care can improve the therapy experience itself. Children often learn best in environments where they feel comfortable and secure. Sessions conducted in the home allow therapists to work within real-world routines and challenges rather than simulated clinical settings. And for some children, interacting through a screen can even feel more natural and familiar.

AI Makes Better Care More Scalable

AI can be a force multiplier, improving both the efficiency and availability of BCBAs. But it can also be deployed to enhance the therapy experience itself and measure progress over time. 

  1. AI enables more personalized therapy. Historically, creating individualized materials and activities required substantial clinician time. AI can now help therapists generate customized content aligned to a child’s interests, developmental goals, and learning style in real time. That allows clinicians to adapt more quickly and keep sessions engaging and relevant for faster progress by kids.
  2. AI helps reduce administrative burden. Highly trained clinicians routinely spend hours each week documenting sessions, reviewing records, writing notes, and developing care plans. These activities are necessary, but they reduce the time available for direct patient care. AI can take on many of these tasks, returning meaningful time to clinicians. 
  3. AI can improve how providers measure and manage outcomes. It can help identify patterns earlier, track progress more consistently, and support more informed treatment planning. Just as importantly, it generates the data needed to evaluate whether children are actually improving rather than simply accumulating therapy hours.

Of course, security and compliance are non-negotiable in this space, especially given the strict regulations health systems and payers face. The default industry standard should include a “compliance toggle” that allows enterprise partners and families to completely disable AI tools whenever their internal security protocols require it.

Building the Next Generation of Autism Care

Autism therapy is entering a period of necessary scrutiny, and bad actors should be held accountable. But the larger opportunity is to build something better.

  • Providers should view virtual care and AI as more than operational tools. Together, they make it possible to deliver higher-quality care with greater efficiency, personalization, and transparency.
  • More importantly, they create the foundation for a different model of care, one where success is measured by a child’s progress rather than the number of hours billed.

That shift will take time. But providers using technology to expand access, strengthen outcomes, and improve accountability will help define what better autism care looks like for the next generation of children and families.

Perspectives: AI Hallucinations in Behavioral Health–Why Access Needs Better Infrastructure, Not Better Chatbots

May 21, 2026 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s topic is about the use of AI in the mental health area–how it is uniquely exposed to risk from LLMs and generative AI–and where best to use them. The author, Hari Prasad, is co-founder and CEO of  Yosi Health, a full-service technology ecosystem that connects patients with their providers through the entire care journey before, during and after the visit, modernizing the entire healthcare patient experience. 

One in three U.S. adults has now used an AI chatbot for health information in the past year, according to the most recent KFF tracking poll. Among adolescents and young adults, one in six has turned to a large language model specifically for mental health advice. That second number should stop every behavioral health leader in their tracks, because when those tools get it wrong, the consequences are not a bad product recommendation. They are clinical.

We are not witnessing patients casually Googling symptoms anymore. They are having extended, emotionally charged conversations with generative AI tools about medications, crisis management, and care decisions, often weeks or months before they ever speak to a licensed provider. And the technology they are confiding in has a well-documented failure mode that the industry still has not adequately addressed: the hallucination.

The Problem Is Not That AI Sounds Wrong. It Is That It Sounds Right.

An AI hallucination occurs when a model generates a response that is fluent, confident, and completely fabricated. In most consumer contexts, that is an inconvenience. In behavioral health, it is a patient safety event waiting to happen.

Consider the real scenarios already playing out: a generative AI tool confidently suggesting an incorrect dosage for a mood stabilizer. A chatbot offering therapeutic advice that directly contradicts evidence-based protocols for trauma. A model providing reassurance to a patient in acute crisis when the clinically appropriate response is immediate escalation. These are not hypothetical edge cases. They are the predictable output of systems designed to be helpful and conversational above all else.

What makes this uniquely dangerous is the packaging. These models are engineered to sound empathetic and authoritative simultaneously. A patient in a vulnerable mental state has no reliable way to distinguish a clinical fact from a statistically plausible guess. And once that trust is broken, the damage extends beyond the misinformation itself. A patient who receives hallucinated guidance during a moment of crisis may lose willingness to engage with the legitimate care system at all.

Why Behavioral Health Is Uniquely Exposed

Two structural realities make behavioral health the highest-stakes frontier for AI hallucination risk: subjectivity and scarcity.

First, subjectivity. Unlike a fracture that shows on an X-ray, mental health concerns are communicated through nuance, context, and subtext. Generative AI is exceptional at mimicking tone. It is incapable of the clinical judgment required to understand the weight behind a patient’s words. There is no lab value to cross-reference, no imaging to confirm. The entire diagnostic framework depends on the kind of human interpretive skill that cannot be approximated by next-token prediction.

Second, scarcity. As of late 2025, 137 million Americans live in a Mental Health Professional Shortage Area, and only about 27% of need is being met in those regions. Appointment wait times range from three weeks to six months depending on location and specialty. For the roughly 29.5 million adults with a mental health condition who received no treatment last year, the barrier was not awareness. It was access. When the pathway to a licensed professional is blocked by a three-month wait, an AI chatbot becomes the path of least resistance, not by preference, but by default.

This is the uncomfortable truth the industry must confront: patients are not turning to AI because they trust it more than their providers. They are turning to AI because the system has not given them a better option.

The Fix Is Infrastructure, Not Disclaimers

The standard industry response to AI hallucination risk has been to add disclaimers and guardrails to the models themselves. That approach treats the symptom while ignoring the disease. The reason patients are having clinical conversations with chatbots is that the operational infrastructure of most practices still makes it easier to talk to a machine at 2 AM than to get a timely appointment with a human being.

The real solution is to shift AI’s role from clinical logic to operational logistics. Practices need to deploy technology that removes the administrative barriers driving patients toward unregulated alternatives in the first place. That means rethinking three operational layers.

Deterministic intake over conversational intake. When an LLM “chats” its way through a patient intake, it introduces the same hallucination risk we are trying to eliminate. The alternative is structured, deterministic intake systems that gather discrete clinical data without improvising questions or advice. Symptoms, history, social determinants of health, all captured through validated frameworks and delivered into the EHR as clean, fact-based data. The clinician gets a head start. The patient gets accuracy.

Precision navigation over generic triage. AI’s greatest operational strength is processing complex variables at scale. That capability should be pointed at routing, not counseling. If a patient’s digital intake surfaces indicators of acute risk, the system should not offer a supportive quote. It should trigger immediate escalation to a crisis line or emergency clinician. The technology’s job is to get the right patient to the right level of care at the right time, not to play therapist in the interim.

Intelligent follow-up over passive waiting. The period between appointments is where behavioral health patients are most isolated and most vulnerable. This is where AI can add genuine value, not by providing care, but by acting as a monitoring layer. Structured check-ins, flagging of concerning patterns in patient-reported outcomes, and automated alerts to clinical teams when intervention thresholds are crossed. The AI serves as a tripwire, not a therapist.

From Advice to Access: The Shift That Matters

The practices getting behavioral health engagement right are not the ones deploying the most sophisticated AI interfaces. They are the ones using technology to collapse the administrative distance between a patient’s first expression of need and their first clinical encounter. When scheduling, intake, and insurance verification happen before the patient walks in, the clinical encounter starts on solid ground. That is what patient engagement actually looks like in 2026.

The hallucination problem is not an argument against AI in healthcare. It is an argument for precision about where AI belongs. Every time we deploy AI in the clinical layer without adequate safeguards, we introduce risk. Every time we deploy it in the operational layer to accelerate access, we reduce risk. The distinction is not subtle, and the stakes are too high to keep blurring it.

Behavioral health already has a trust deficit driven by stigma, scarcity, and systemic friction. The last thing this field needs is a technology layer that erodes trust further by giving patients confident answers that turn out to be wrong. The opportunity in front of us is to use AI to rebuild that trust by making the system itself faster, smarter, and more responsive. Not by replacing the clinician, but by making sure the patient actually gets to one.

Related article from TTA

Character.AI sued by Pennsylvania on its chatbots posing as licensed physicians and psychiatrists

 

Perspectives: The Next Phase of Healthcare AI Will Depend on Operational Execution

May 21, 2026 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s topic is on moving AI tools from restricted pilots to full operational use, and what that entails in workflow design. The author, Inger Sivanthi, is the Chief Executive Officer of Droidal, an AI healthcare services company focused on revenue cycle and operational automation. His and the company’s work centers on responsible AI adoption that scales to real world clinical and operational workflows.

For the past few years, healthcare AI has been framed as a story about possibility. Leaders have asked which workflows could be automated, which decisions could be supported, and which longstanding bottlenecks might finally be addressed. Those questions were necessary, because they opened the door to experimentation and helped organizations test where AI might create value.

That phase is ending. The difference between organizations that will move forward and those that stall no longer lies in how many AI tools they pilot. It lies in how well they can embed AI into real workflows, governance structures, and enterprise systems. The next phase of healthcare AI will depend on operational execution, not on how advanced the models are.

Pilots rarely prepare you for real operations

Most pilots run under conditions that real operations never see. The workflow is narrow, the team is small, and someone is watching the numbers closely enough to catch problems before they compound. In that environment, even fragile AI tools can look impressive.

Production is different. Real healthcare operations are full of exceptions, staff changes, and system constraints. Tasks that start with simple data triage or routing quickly spread into clinical, scheduling, and financial workflows. The closer AI gets to patient care, safety, and financial outcomes, the more important the underlying operational design becomes.

A 2023 systematic review on barriers to AI in healthcare, published in PLOS Digital Health via the National Institutes of Health, shows that the main obstacles are not the algorithms themselves, but how they fit into existing workflows and governance structures. The model may work. The operational scaffolding does not.

Success depends on how you design workflows around AI

Healthcare AI becomes valuable only when it fits naturally into the way people already work. That requires more than a technical deployment. It requires clarity on who reviews the output, who handles exceptions, and how decisions are documented when the system is wrong.

When an AI system touches clinical documentation, care coordination, or billing decisions, the downstream consequences land on real people and real timelines. Delays or misrouted tasks can affect patient access, continuity of care, and financial performance. The closer AI gets to those outcomes, the more important it is to have a named person responsible for reviewing what the system produces and catching what it misses.

Connectivity between systems and teams is just as critical as the AI model itself. Point tools that sit outside the surrounding infrastructure often create new handoffs instead of removing work. The strongest operational use cases in healthcare are those that span pre‑service, clinical, and post‑service workflows. AI delivers the most value when it supports the full sequence, not just one isolated task.

Trust depends on how you govern AI in practice

Another reason execution is difficult is that organizations often treat adoption as an afterthought. Staff are expected to absorb new tools while maintaining the same pace, same targets, and same accountability. That usually leads to friction, workarounds, or quiet resistance.

AI changes the shape of work. It shifts who reviews information, who handles exceptions, and how quickly decisions move. People need clarity on those changes and confidence that the system supports them, not that it creates hidden complexity. The closer AI gets to high‑stakes decisions, the more important it is to have clear governance, oversight, and auditability.

The American Medical Association highlights that clear accountability, oversight, and governance are essential for AI to earn trust inside health systems. AI will not win trust through claims or marketing. It will earn trust by performing consistently inside real workflows, especially when pressure is high and staff have no time to compensate for gaps.

Operational execution is where AI succeeds or fails

The organizations that move ahead in healthcare AI will not be the ones running the most pilots. They will be the ones that turn AI into dependable operational infrastructure. That means embedding responsibility, transparency, and integration into the design from the start.

The next phase of healthcare AI will depend on how well organizations manage its operational execution, not on how advanced the models are. Healthcare leaders who treat AI as a workflow‑design problem, not just a technology problem, will be the ones for whom it actually works in practice.

Perspectives: What Healthcare Can Learn from Formula One About AI

April 21, 2026 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. We welcome back Iris Telehealth for today’s topic on how telehealth and clinical dashboards should be like modern Formula 1 race cars’–displaying the relevant information for that patient visit and increasing clinician presence versus being overwhelmed by data and documentation load. The author, David Bartley, is Iris Telehealth’s Chief Solutions Officer, with over 20 years of experience leading healthcare product strategy across payers, providers, and population health organizations including MedeAnalytics, Cotivi (formerly Verisk Health), eviCore, Healthways and Humana.

Behavioral health organizations are already absorbing a level of administrative pressure that has nothing to do with clinical care. I’ve spoken with CEOs of rural mental health clinics who are deciding between keeping a clinician on staff and sustaining the administrative infrastructure required to stay compliant.

One told me he had seven people on staff doing nothing but collecting state reporting data — compliance work that consumed payroll he would rather put toward clinical capacity. That tradeoff is exactly what funding pressure forces, and it is where AI can do something genuinely useful: absorbing the administrative work so that the next available dollar goes toward a clinician, not a spreadsheet.

What’s keeping organizations from achieving this reality with AI? Well, most of the industry is measuring AI’s value primarily through operational metrics, like how many more patients a provider can see, how fast documentation gets processed, or how lean an operation can run. Those are important operational metrics — but on their own, they don’t tell us whether care actually improved.

The organizations that figure out how to use AI to deepen the quality of each encounter, rather than multiply the number of them, will move care forward.

Leading health systems are already building toward it. At Mayo Clinic, for example, investments in integrated, AI-enabled platforms are helping bring together multimodal clinical data and advanced analytics in ways that surface the most relevant insights at the moment of care. It’s a signal that the industry is moving beyond AI as an efficiency tool and toward AI as a clinical intelligence layer.

Surfacing what matters, exactly when it matters

When I think about what AI should look like inside a clinical encounter, I keep coming back to Formula One. A driver at race speed does not receive every data point the car is generating. They get tire temps, oil pressure, wind shear — the six or seven variables that matter most in that exact moment, surfaced at eye level in what is known as a heads-up display, so they can keep their focus on the track.

A telehealth dashboard should work the same way. Data like relevant patient history, active risk factors and behavioral signals worth exploring, all fixed at the top of the screen. Something buried in a clinical note from two years ago that has not been relevant for months could resurface the moment the conversation makes it useful again.  The goal of AI in behavioral health should not be to simply accelerate care delivery but to increase the signal-to-noise ratio inside each clinical moment.

The provider never has to look away from the patient to find it, and the patient never loses the sense that the person on the other side of the screen is fully present. In behavioral health especially, where the therapeutic relationship is the mechanism of care, the quality of that connection often determines whether treatment actually works.

The value of presence

A JAMA Network study published in October 2025, with data collected in 2024, on ambient AI scribes found that documentation load directly erodes the attention providers can bring to each encounter. Clearing that load only to fill the time with more appointments trades one problem for another.

Providers need time between encounters to process what they heard, notice what did not get said and carry genuine context into the next conversation. That kind of reflection is where clinical judgment actually develops and is exactly what gets squeezed out when efficiency becomes the primary design constraint.

Patients who feel that a provider is fully present are more likely to disclose accurately, follow through on treatment, and stay engaged over time. AI designed around that outcome becomes a powerful tool that actually earns its place in the workflow.

Formula One teams do not build heads-up displays to increase the number of races a driver competes in. They build them to make each race winnable. The industry would do well to borrow that distinction.

Perspectives: Exploring the Telehealth Extension: Building Infrastructures for Better Access

April 9, 2026 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s topic is on how the most recent two-year extension of Medicare telehealth flexibilities necessitate a more robust healthcare infrastructure to better utilize the additional data generated by remote patient monitoring. The author, Jiang Li, Ph.D., is founder and CEO of Vivalink, Inc., a Silicon Valley company developing digital health technology solutions for remote patient monitoring in healthcare and clinical research.

Ensuring equal healthcare access to Americans across the country is an ongoing effort. The latest funding bill from Congress looks to improve access by expanding where and how people receive care through a two-year extension of Medicare telehealth flexibilities. The bill adds to the five-year extension to the CMS Acute Hospital Care at Home (AHCAH) waiver, which allows hospitals to deliver acute inpatient care in patients’ homes with full Medicare reimbursement. Since its launch in 2020, the program has continued to receive extensions in the continued effort to ensure Americans living in rural or remote areas receive the healthcare they need.

Under the current Medicare extensions, telehealth provides real-time medical and mental health appointments over secure video from a patient’s location, along with a wide range of Part B services such as specialist consults, rehab, and psychotherapy. This latest extension allows beneficiaries to continue receiving this care from an expanded list of healthcare providers. While the original waiver was authorized in response to COVID-19, research shows that around 17% of healthcare visits were conducted via telehealth modalities post-2020, with over 116 million global users listed in 2024.

Telehealth helps address a gap in healthcare access felt by many Americans living in rural locations. While the extension provides flexibility for those patients to continue receiving remote care, it isn’t enough to close the gaps in American healthcare on its own. What will define its success is a deliberate investment in infrastructure from health systems, policymakers, and technology developers alike.

Exploring the Access Problem

Nearly 80% of rural America is classified as medically underserved, facing barriers such as provider shortages, high poverty rates, and a rapidly aging population. For Medicare-eligible patients in these communities, the obstacles to consistent care, including transportation limitations to caregiver responsibilities, can often prove to be insurmountable, blocking them from necessary medical care.

We see the direct result of these consequences in the data. One significant example is cardiac rehabilitation — more than one million Americans become eligible each year, yet fewer than 20% participate. Even among those referred, less than 34% enroll, largely because the model still demands repeated clinic visits that many patients simply cannot manage. This has been a slow but sure systemic struggle, embedded in how care has historically been designed and delivered.

We can see these consequences further compounded by issues with traditional monitoring. Episodic, in-clinic measurements offer only brief snapshots of a patient’s health, often missing transient but dangerous events occurring between visits. A study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital found that 27% of cardiac surgery patients experienced new atrial fibrillation episodes after discharge that traditional follow-up would have missed entirely. This post-discharge period, long treated as a clinical blind spot, illustrates the value of supporting remote care.

Making Changes for a Stronger Infrastructure

The outcomes of the AHCAH waiver have been significant: an analysis of over 5,800 patients treated under the waiver at Mass General Brigham found in-care mortality below 1%, compared to a national inpatient average of approximately 2%, with only 7% requiring return hospitalization. The cost savings are notable as well, with one review finding that hospital-at-home (HaH) patients cost approximately 20% less than traditional inpatients, allowing Medicare to spend $1,000 to $3,300 less per case across common conditions like pneumonia, heart failure, and sepsis in the 30 days post-discharge.

To ensure similar outcomes and savings at scale, a stronger infrastructure is needed. We’re already seeing movement in the replacement of traditional, episodic data by medical-grade wearable sensors capable of continuous ECG monitoring, temperature tracking, and real-time data transmission. We’re already seeing solutions for issues such as interrupted data capture during connectivity gaps, simply by expanding the storage capabilities of devices that support rural Medicare populations.

Interoperability is equally important. Biometric data from wearables should flow directly into electronic health records and centralized clinical dashboards, delivering real-time alerts without burdening staff with manual data entry. For regional and mid-sized hospitals that serve the most underserved populations, this means access to modular platforms rather than expensive third-party bundles that absorb reimbursements before they reach patient care.

Supporting a Stronger Future

The decision to extend Medicare telehealth flexibilities is a market signal for health systems. Regulatory uncertainty has been one of the greatest barriers to the advancement of remote patient monitoring platforms, wearable infrastructure, and other programs. When reimbursement timelines are measured in months, it is difficult to justify multi-year infrastructure investments. As the CMS update extends reimbursement by two years, at-home care now has the opportunity to become an evolving standard of Medicare delivery worth investing in.

The opportunity extends well beyond Medicare. The same remote patient monitoring infrastructure enabling home-based acute care is powering decentralized clinical trials, expanding access for older and rural patients historically excluded from research. These opportunities for growth and inclusivity, supported by CMS, signal that at-home care is becoming a permanent feature of how Medicare is delivered.

Perspectives: Telehealth as Infrastructure–Building a Financially and Clinically Sustainable Virtual Channel

March 19, 2026 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s topic is how clinicians can take advantage of the telehealth flexibilities extension to 2027 by integrating telehealth and virtual care fully within their operational workflow and within patient care. The author, Matthew Order, is Vice President of Business Development at Yosi Health. He has more than 20 years of healthcare technology and SaaS experience including previous roles at MEDITECH, athenahealth and Buoy Health. At Yosi, he leads enterprise adoption across health systems, translating product integrations into measurable operational improvements for practices and patients.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently extended many Medicare telehealth flexibilities through December 31, 2027. That policy decision signals what providers already know: telehealth is no longer a short-term option to expand access to care, but a permanent channel of care delivery.

That policy certainty is welcome, but it also exposes a hard truth: simply offering video visits won’t deliver value unless telehealth is embedded into the day-to-day operational workflows of the practice. Clinics that want telehealth to reduce cost, improve access, and protect revenue must redesign the patient journey so virtual care is predictable, reimbursable and measurable.

Here are the practical, operational steps clinics should take now.

Move pre-visit upstream

The biggest operational losses happen around patient visits, e.g. when intake is incomplete, insurance is unknown, or staff must chase missing information. One way to change this is by moving pre-visit work upstream: require or encourage patients to complete digital intake forms before an appointment and surface those discrete data fields directly into the chart. This isn’t just a patient convenience, it fundamentally changes how front-office work gets done. Studies show that centralizing reminders and automating pre-visit tasks improves appointment utilization and reduces no-shows, two levers that matter for telehealth ROI.

Treat eligibility as clinical infrastructure, not an afterthought

Nothing kills collections faster than an unpaid copay or an ineligible telehealth claim. Embed real-time eligibility and benefits checks into the pre-visit flow so patients see their financial responsibilities before the encounter and staff can resolve red flags ahead of time. Organizations that operationalize eligibility verification as a revenue-cycle control point report fewer denials and faster time-to-cash. This is the difference between telehealth being a marginal convenience and a reliable revenue stream.

Design rule-based automation for phone and scheduling channels

Studies show over 60% appointments are still made by phone. If your telehealth offering can’t integrate with phone volume and scheduling rules, it is difficult to scale. Deploy rule-based automation that reads live availability, applies clinic booking policies, verifies benefits, and either completes the booking or hands off with full context to a human. For transactional tasks, rule-based systems often outperform free-form AI systems because they reduce follow-ups, corrections, and operational risk.

Measure clinical and financial outcomes, not vanity metrics

Define a tight set of KPIs tied to margin and access: completed telehealth visit rate, no-show reduction, denial rate for telehealth claims, point-of-service collections, and staff minutes reclaimed per patient. A simple 60–90 day pilot with baseline and target thresholds will tell you whether integration and automation are working. And instrument technical reliability as well; API success rates, data mapping accuracy, and escalation quality matter just as much as outcomes.

Protect equity and patient experience as you scale

Telehealth should expand access, not create new disparities. Make digital intake mobile-first and low-bandwidth, provide multilingual options, and maintain assisted touchpoints (phone registration, in-clinic support) for patients who need them. Evaluate patient satisfaction specifically by channel; a good telehealth system should reduce friction, not shift it elsewhere.

Make governance non-negotiable

Without clear operational ownership, telehealth programs drift and performance deteriorates. Who owns booking rules? Who maintains payer mappings? What are clear escalation policies for clinical red flags? Assign cross-functional ownership (e.g. operations, revenue cycle, clinical leaders, and IT) and lock in a change-control cadence that prevents “rule drift” as policies and payer contracts change. Evidence that EHR workload-per-visit can rise even when visit volume falls illustrates why governance and workflow redesign must accompany modality shifts.

Pilot pragmatically—and scale what earns results

Don’t rip-and-replace overnight. Start with two tightly scoped pilots: for example, telehealth follow-ups for chronic care and virtual urgent visits for same-day access. Keep pilots time-boxed, assign a process owner, and require week-over-week reporting on the KPIs that impact margin and access. If real-time eligibility and pre-visit intake reduce denials and nursing callbacks in the pilot, scale; if not, iterate.

Why this matters now

Policy windows like CMS’s telehealth extension present a rare opportunity – but only practices that pair clinical intent with operational discipline will secure lasting gains. With continued Medicaid churn and administrative pressure on primary care, clinics can’t afford telehealth programs that add friction or unpredictability. Integrating intake, eligibility verification, automation, and governance turns telehealth into a reliable channel for expanding access and stabilizing revenue. Recent analyses from KFF highlight how enrollment volatility is already increasing administrative burden across care settings.

By operationalizing telehealth – moving work upstream, protecting revenue at intake, automating predictable tasks, and measuring what counts – clinics can shift from friction to flow. That’s the difference between telehealth that breaks even and telehealth that delivers sustainable access, better outcomes, and measurable financial returns.

Perspectives: Bridging the Gap in Rural Healthcare Through Telehealth

April 7, 2025 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s topic is the closure of rural hospitals and whether telehealth can bridge this access gap. The author, Hari Prasad, is co-founder and CEO of  Yosi Health, a full-service technology ecosystem that connects patients with their providers through the entire care journey before, during and after the visit, creating delightful patient experiences and modernizing the entire healthcare patient experience. 

Rural hospitals across the United States are at risk of closing especially if Medicare and Medicaid cuts are enacted. According to a March 2025 report by the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, over the past two decades, nearly 200 rural hospitals have already closed. It’s an economic reality that could leave hundreds of thousands of Americans without local medical care.

Rural communities, which already face challenges related to limited healthcare resources, transportation, as well as staffing and economic constraints, are likely to experience even greater disparities in access to essential services. As these hospitals and clinics face potential shutdowns, telehealth is emerging as a critical tool to maintain healthcare connectivity and improve patient outcomes in these underserved areas.

The threat of rural hospital closures has far-reaching implications. For many residents, these facilities provide not only emergency care but also routine health services, chronic disease management, and preventive screenings. With the loss of a nearby hospital, patients are often forced to travel long distances for care—a situation that can delay treatment and exacerbate health conditions. Additionally, the closure of rural hospitals often leads to increased pressure on remaining facilities, further straining resources and limiting access.

Telehealth, which allows patients to connect with healthcare providers through digital platforms, offers a promising solution to these challenges. By enabling virtual consultations, remote monitoring, and digital care coordination, telehealth can mitigate some of the negative effects of hospital closures. It provides patients with timely access to medical advice and treatment without the need for long, costly journeys to distant facilities.

In my experience at Yosi Health, we are witnessing a notable trend: rural healthcare providers are increasingly turning to telehealth as a means of bridging the access gap. Digital tools and virtual care platforms have evolved to support not only routine consultations but also more complex care management needs. For example, remote patient monitoring is now being used to track chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, ensuring that patients receive ongoing care – without the constant need for in-person visits.

Furthermore, telehealth solutions are proving effective in reducing hospital strain. By diverting non-emergency cases from overcrowded emergency departments, these platforms help ensure that hospital resources are preserved for patients in critical need. Virtual visits can also lead to more efficient use of healthcare resources, allowing providers to manage larger patient loads with improved workflow efficiencies.

There are, however, challenges that must be addressed for telehealth to reach its full potential in rural areas. One of the key issues is the digital divide. While broadband expansion initiatives and improved rural telecommunications infrastructure are making strides, many rural communities still lack reliable internet access—a crucial component for successful telehealth implementation. Policymakers at the state and federal levels, including considerations in the Federal 2026 budget, are beginning to recognize the importance of investing in these areas. Such investments are essential to ensure that telehealth can serve as a viable alternative to in-person care in rural settings.

Another challenge is ensuring that telehealth services are fully integrated with existing healthcare systems. Interoperability between telehealth platforms and electronic medical records (EMRs) is vital to maintain a seamless flow of patient information, which in turn supports continuity of care. As more healthcare providers adopt digital solutions, the need for standardization and robust data exchange protocols becomes increasingly important.

Ultimately, while telehealth is not a complete substitute for all in-person care, it is a powerful tool that can help maintain continuity in the face of rural hospital closures. By improving access to care, reducing travel burdens, and alleviating pressure on overstretched facilities, telehealth can play a central role in preserving the health of rural populations.

The ongoing evolution of telehealth technology offers a hopeful outlook for rural healthcare. As innovations continue to improve service delivery and integration, it is imperative for stakeholders—providers, policymakers, and technology developers alike—to collaborate in expanding these solutions. In doing so, we can help ensure that rural communities are not left behind, but instead have access to the high-quality, timely care they deserve.

For Perspectives editorial and additional opportunities such as supporting TTA through advertising, contact Editor Donna.

Perspectives: As police step back from mental health calls, telepsychiatry steps forward

March 26, 2025 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Our hot topic today is community mental health crisis response, and the role that telepsychiatry can play in an integrated approach to  prevent crises from escalating. Today’s contribution is from Andy Flanagan of Iris Telehealth. As CEO, he drives strategy, operations, and culture, leveraging his extensive healthcare and leadership experience. A four-time CEO with a background in global health tech, he holds degrees from Northwestern and the University of Nevada, Reno.

Law enforcement is stepping back from mental health crisis response. Sacramento County Sheriff recently announced deputies will no longer respond to non-criminal mental health calls, citing a recent Ninth Circuit Court ruling that questioned police involvement where no crime has occurred.

Sacramento isn’t alone. In Austin, Texas, the police union president declared that “the Austin Police Department must stop responding to mental health calls,” as reported by Fox 7 Austin.

Law enforcement is underequipped for mental health crises. But who should respond instead? How do we build a system that connects people in crisis with appropriate care?

The answer lies in creating integrated crisis response systems that combine trained mental health professionals, community resources and telepsychiatry to ensure people in crisis get immediate access to appropriate care, regardless of location or timing.

The current crisis

In Austin alone, police responded to 34,000-52,000 mental health calls annually since 2020. Nationally, the burden is immense, with behavioral health-related emergency department (ED) visits doubling from 2011 to 2020, now reaching approximately 47 visits per 100 people.

When law enforcement withdraws from mental health response, this pressure shifts to already strained emergency departments. Without alternative systems in place, people experiencing mental health crises have nowhere to turn except hospital EDs, leading to overcrowding, extended wait times and less-than-optimal care environments for behavioral health needs.

First responders face an impossible task. Most receive minimal mental health training — often just 40 to 120 hours — compared to the years of specialized education mental health clinicians receive. This gap creates dangerous situations like the DeSilva case that prompted the Ninth Circuit ruling.

A better approach

Communities are discovering more effective models for mental health crisis response. The nationwide 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline provides immediate access to trained counselors, while integrated crisis response systems — like Austin’s approach of offering mental health services as a 911 option — show promising results. When Austin callers select mental health services, they’re connected with Integral Care clinicians who conduct assessments, provide support and deploy mobile crisis teams when needed. According to Fox 7 Austin, 87% of these calls are resolved without police involvement.

Specialized mental health professionals are the cornerstone of these systems. These experts bring the right training and perspective to de-escalate situations, connect individuals to appropriate resources and provide trauma-informed care. Unlike law enforcement, their approach centers on therapeutic intervention rather than control and containment.

Technology bridges access to specialized services. Telepsychiatry enables immediate access to mental health expertise, even when providers aren’t physically present. Digital platforms can connect crisis responders with psychiatrists for real-time consultation, ensuring appropriate assessment and care planning from the first point of contact. This is particularly valuable for rural communities with provider shortages, where in-person mental health specialists may not be readily available.

The role of telepsychiatry

Telepsychiatry platforms connect patients directly to behavioral health expertise before crises escalate. Today’s technology enables immediate access to qualified mental health professionals through smartphone apps, community centers and EDs. Modern systems incorporate AI-driven analytics to optimize patient scheduling and resource allocation without replacing clinical judgment.

The benefits are immediate for patients who receive specialized care within 30-45 minutes versus traditional ED visits taking 2+ hours. Healthcare providers gain psychiatric expertise without maintaining 24/7 in-house specialists, addressing a critical gap where 54% of U.S. hospitals have no psychiatrists available for ED and inpatient consultation services. When telepsychiatry is effectively implemented, health systems experience reduced boarding times, lower admission rates and improved emergency department throughput. One hospital avoided more than $1.7 million in boarding costs with a 281% return on investment, while another reduced psychiatric patient length of stay by 70%.

Technology works best when enhancing human expertise, not replacing it. A recent Iris Telehealth survey found 41% of respondents would feel comfortable receiving treatment recommendations from AI-powered mental health tools, and 33% would leverage these tools if integrated into services they already use (think telehealth platforms or primary care visits).

As law enforcement rightfully steps back from mental health crisis response, we must step forward with integrated solutions that combine human expertise and technology. Telepsychiatry represents one critical piece of a comprehensive approach connecting people in crisis with appropriate care.

For Perspectives editorial and additional opportunities such as supporting TTA through advertising, contact Editor Donna.

Perspectives: Telehealth Expands Access to Addiction Treatment and Specialized Care, But Navigating Regulations Remains Key

March 18, 2025 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Telehealth extensions, especially for controlled substances, are hot topics and here is another Perspectives on this topic. Today’s contribution is from Nate MacLeitch, CEO and founder of QuickBlox, an AI communication platform. He is a seasoned business leader with deep expertise in telecom, media, software, and technology, having held leadership roles at WIN Plc (now Cisco) and Twistbox Entertainment (now Digital Turbine). He also advises and invests in startups and holds degrees from UC Davis and the London School of Economics.

Telehealth’s really made a huge difference in who can get good medical care. By enabling health system leaders to connect more patients to doctors, 91% now report having a telehealth program in place.

Even so, accessibility to prescriptions and proper healthcare remains a critical issue in the US. A systematic review of 185 studies found that 54% of cases indicated how disability or chronic health conditions create barriers to medication access. Race contributed to 28% of reported barriers, while income and education levels were factors in 30% of the studies. Furthermore, half identified a lack of available treatment or healthcare practitioners as a significant structural barrier.

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) recent announcement to make permanent three telehealth regulations increases access to vital medical services—particularly addiction treatment, specialized care, and care for veterans. Here’s what telehealth providers need to know.

The DEA’s latest ruling

Telehealth is a necessary avenue to solve accessibility barriers, however, it comes with its own challenges. Patient safety and preventing the diversion of medications into the illicit drug market are at the heart of the DEA’s amendments. See the three latest rules below:

Expansion of buprenorphine treatment via telemedicine encounter

The allowance of initial buprenorphine prescriptions via telephone consultations for up to a six-month supply addresses a critical need in combating opioid addiction. This removes a major barrier for individuals seeking treatment, particularly in rural or underserved areas.

Practitioners must note that the requirement for subsequent in-person visits ensures a balance between accessibility and safe patient care. Further telemedicine prescriptions following this period may be permitted but will first require an in-person visit to a medical provider.

Telehealth platforms should be designed to facilitate these initial consultations, seamlessly integrate with existing healthcare systems, and automatically notify patients and practitioners when the six-month window is completed.

Special registrations for telemedicine and limited state telemedicine registrations

The introduction of special registrations for telemedicine, including the ability for medical practitioners to prescribe Schedule III-V controlled substances without prior in-person evaluations, significantly broadens the scope of telehealth. This helps patients struggling with conditions such as sleep disorders, diarrhea, and anxiety to receive ongoing medication management.

For Schedule II medications, which are more addictive and prone to diversion to the illegal drug market, the DEA established an advanced telemedicine prescribing registration. Certain Schedule II medications are prescribable via telehealth but require the medical practitioner to be board-certified in one of the following specialties: psychiatrists; hospice care physicians; physicians rendering treatment at long-term care facilities, and pediatricians.

While the DEA currently only allows certain types of doctors to use telehealth to prescribe controlled medications, it asks the public to comment on any needs and reasons for expanding this list. The agency’s consideration in making it easier to use telehealth for treating complicated health problems is a good sign for the future of virtual healthcare.

In the meantime, telehealth providers can help clients and partners identify practitioners’ certifications and monitor and restrict prescription types based on their associated authorities within the platform.

Continuity of care via telemedicine for Veterans Affairs patients

The clarification regarding continuity of care for Veterans Affairs patients via telemedicine is a welcome development. By extending the provider-patient relationship established during an initial in-person visit to all US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) practitioners using telehealth, the VA is streamlining care coordination and improving veterans’ access to required medication.

Telehealth providers must support secure communication and data sharing between platforms and the VA system, further enhancing the continuity of care for veterans.

How automatic notifications can help

(more…)

Perspectives: How the DEA Telehealth Extension Impacts Patient Access to Opioid Use Disorder Treatments & Buprenorphine Prescriptions

March 11, 2025 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Telehealth extensions, including those for controlled substances, are hot topics and before the US Congress today. Today’s contribution is from Dr. Beth Dunlap, a board-certified addiction medicine and family medicine physician and the medical director at Northern Illinois Recovery Center. With extensive experience in addiction medicine at all levels of care, her clinical interests include integrated primary care and addiction medicine, harm reduction, and medication-assisted treatment. She completed medical school, residency, and fellowship at Northwestern University, where she continues to serve on the faculty of the Department of Family and Community Medicine.

Telemedicine flexibilities for buprenorphine, the controlled substance recognized for its high safety profile in treating opioid disorder (OUD), will live to see another year after being re-extended through December 31, 2025. That is, for now.

Federal regulators first leveled the access playing field to buprenorphine in 2020, in response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. The pandemic-friendly policy change allowed buprenorphine administrators to prescribe the substance via telehealth, waiving the previously required in-person patient evaluation.

Renewals granted by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), have since kept telemedicine flexibilities for controlled substances alive.

With these protections in place, the treatment landscape for opioid use disorder looks bright, but one overturned ruling from the incoming Trump Administration could change everything.

Buprenorphine hasn’t always been as widely accessible as it is today.

It wasn’t too long ago when buprenorphine prescribers had their hands tied, with regulations like the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, a previous DEA-enforced statute that prohibited them from prescribing buprenorphine over the internet.

Things changed once the DEA dialed back on their telemedicine restrictions in March 2020, permitting providers to prescribe buprenorphine via telehealth platforms and waiving the required initial in-person visit.

Later-released studies that analyzed patient data for “low-threshold” buprenorphine treatment programs, many of which were offered at COVID-19 isolation sites and out of mobile vans, revealed that telemedicine showed much promise in successfully engaging patients from different socioeconomic backgrounds. This included rural residents, veterans, and homeless individuals seeking continued buprenorphine-based treatment.

Such telehealth programs were reported to have high patient engagement numbers in the areas of acceptability and feasibility. For instance, many feasibility studies reported a 60% or higher rate of continued engagement after 30 days of initial prescription.

There are a couple of downsides to telehealth-administered buprenorphine, and that’s patient selection and monitoring. Telemedicine is most appropriate for patients who do not have a lot of unmet psychosocial needs, and who can stabilize, manage meds appropriately, and otherwise have more recovery-related resources.

It may also not be a good option for patients who are struggling with multiple substances or have unmet medical or psychiatric needs.  So, it is not the appropriate care setting for everyone.  However, there are many pros to it, including accessibility, convenience, and lower access barriers than some in-person options.

Policy extensions have bought the DEA more time to rethink telemedicine’s future.

After receiving public feedback on a set of newer proposed telemedicine rules, the DEA and HHS have since worked diligently to release more permanent regulatory updates.

To justify their decisions on how to regulate buprenorphine prescriptions moving forward, these federal agencies have largely leaned on evidence-based studies published in scientific journals. Expanded access to treatment services through telehealth is likely one of the reasons why the country has seen a recent drop in overdose death rates, among other factors.

In one study that assessed patient retention rates for an urban buprenorphine treatment program, the patient show rate increased from 74.1% for prior routine in-person visits to 91.7% for telehealth visits. In another study that focused on patient experiences with buprenorphine telehealth treatments, 84.5% of participants reported having overall positive outcomes.

I am hopeful that DEA will recognize that the current rules have allowed greater access for patients seeking treatment for substance use disorders and mental health, and move to make permanent access to buprenorphine via telehealth.

For Perspectives editorial and additional opportunities such as supporting TTA through advertising, contact Editor Donna.

Perspectives: Three Strategies to Bring Digital-First Care to Patients Through Telehealth

January 22, 2025 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s contribution is from Jessica Wagner, Chief Operating Officer at RXNT, who leverages extensive customer insight, product expertise, and organizational experience to address challenges in the healthcare industry. With a background spanning roles in product management, sales, and marketing, she is dedicated to delivering software solutions that simplify operations for healthcare organizations, enabling them to focus on patient care. Wagner holds a Master’s in Technology Management from Georgetown University and a Bachelor’s in Philosophy from Palm Beach Atlantic.

This article highlights the findings of their recently published report, “Tracking the Impact of Technology on Patient Satisfaction Within the US Healthcare System”, available for download here.

Today’s patients expect flexible, convenient, digital-first healthcare experiences. Telehealth can address many of these needs by reducing travel time, eliminating long waits, and allowing remote consultations. However, if practices fail to communicate telehealth’s availability and benefits, patients may remain unaware or skeptical.

Our 2024 survey report uncovered that difficulty scheduling appointments (42%) and long wait times (38%) are two leading causes of patient dissatisfaction—barriers that telehealth can help overcome by offering quicker and more flexible access to care. On top of that, over half of patients surveyed believe introducing more technology would improve their healthcare experience, and 35% say they’d consider switching providers for better digital services.

When telehealth flexibilities are a core component of your business strategy, it shows patients you’re committed to facilitating the modern, seamless care experience they expect. Here are three steps your practice can take to make this happen:

1. Promote Telehealth Services on Your Website’s Landing Page

Your website is your digital front door. When patients land on your homepage—new or existing—they should see whether you offer telehealth and how they can access it. Showcase telehealth with a bold call-to-action button, short explanatory text, and clear benefits:

  • Explain “Why Telehealth?”
    Use bullet points or a concise paragraph to clarify common patient questions and the benefits of telehealth, such as reduced travel time, minimized exposure risks, and convenient, timely appointments from anywhere.
  • Highlight Ease of Scheduling
    2 in 5 patients say it’s hard to get in touch with healthcare professionals for appointments. Highlight that your telehealth booking process is designed to be quick and simple with no phone tag necessary.
  • Offer Patient Testimonials
    If available, share—in a HIPAA-compliant manner—a testimonial or quote from a patient that shows how telehealth saved time, money, or both.

2. Update Online Profiles and Manage Reviews; Include Your Telehealth Services

Patients increasingly rely on online reviews and listings to find providers they can trust. Ensure that Google My Business, Healthgrades, WebMD, Yelp, and more reflect your telemedicine appointment options so that potential patients know you’re ready to meet their digital preferences.

  • Emphasize Digital Convenience
    Fifty-five percent of patients prefer using a mobile application to manage appointments. On each profile, detail how you make remote care accessible, whether via a proprietary app or a web-based portal.
  • Mention Text and Email Reminders
    Nearly 9 in 10 consumers say they find text notifications valuable. If your practice utilizes text reminders for telehealth, call it out under the “Services” section or description.
  • Provide Easy Booking Links
    Link directly to your telehealth scheduling tool to simplify the process. The fewer clicks it takes, the more likely patients are to book a virtual consultation.

3. Offer Telehealth for Every Applicable Client Appointment

Sometimes, patients need an extra nudge to try telehealth. Encourage staff, particularly receptionists or schedulers, to mention remote appointments whenever it’s clinically appropriate.

  • Alleviate Communication Woes
    Poor communication with healthcare providers is the top complaint among unsatisfied patients. To combat this, telehealth platforms often include built-in messaging features that give patients a direct line of communication to manage care and help reduce missed connections.
  • Showcase Time Savings
    Highlight how telehealth can minimize time off work or away from family. The more you can personalize these perks, the greater the likelihood that patients will opt in. As an example, write something like, “Have your appointment from home in 15 minutes.”
  • Normalize Telehealth as a Standard Option
    Even in routine appointment reminders or automated messages, include “Switch to a telehealth appointment!” prompt. Present virtual care as routine to foster acceptance among those who might otherwise only consider in-person visits.

Meeting Patient Needs in a Modern World

Telehealth has become a vital part of modern healthcare strategy. Showcasing its benefits in as many places as possible will highlight its convenience and reinforce your commitment to meeting the changing needs of your patients.

Our survey data suggests that effectively communicating your telehealth offerings can provide a significant competitive edge. In today’s healthcare space, success means delivering it on patients’ terms: where, when, and how they need it.

Perspectives: How Telehealth is Transforming Access for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Patients

December 13, 2024 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s contribution is from Mark Knudsen, the president of AMN Language Services. Mark brings experience from previous roles at AMN Healthcare, Synzi, and Stratus Video. He holds a Master of Arts (M.A.) in Theological Studies at Regent College. AMN Healthcare Language Services (AMN LS) is a healthcare language solutions provider that offers a range of services for patients with limited English proficiency, hearing impairments, or deafness. 

For millions of Americans with limited English proficiency (LEP), accessing healthcare can feel like trying to solve a puzzle with missing pieces.

Telehealth, once considered a temporary solution to the pandemic, is filling in those gaps, removing language barriers that have long hindered LEP patients from understanding their care. It is clearly here to stay.

The integration of medically trained language interpreters into many telehealth platforms has been making it easier for LEP patients and those who are deaf or hard of hearing to converse with healthcare providers in their preferred language, and ultimately, providing better quality care for patients. This access is essential for effective diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up, helping patients understand their health information.

In rural or underserved areas, where access to specialized healthcare is limited, telehealth becomes especially valuable. Finding qualified bilingual providers or medically qualified interpreters who speak specific languages in these regions is often challenging. Telehealth overcomes this obstacle by connecting LEP patients with language-appropriate care from professionals across the country. This not only reduces travel burdens but also minimizes misunderstandings that could lead to incorrect treatments, offering patients a reliable, culturally competent care experience.

Telehealth’s cost-effectiveness is another advantage. Telehealth consultations are generally more affordable than in-person visits, and the built-in interpretation services help lower access barriers for patients. For healthcare organizations, telehealth also presents a scalable, sustainable approach to language access, allowing them to provide high-quality care to diverse populations without the logistical challenges and costs of in-person interpretation.

However, telehealth still faces challenges in ensuring equitable language access. Some platforms lack sufficient language and accessibility features, creating frustrations for LEP patients. Additionally, some healthcare providers may try to “shortcut” interpretation by relying on family members or unqualified bilingual staff instead of trained medical interpreters. While this may seem practical in the moment, it’s not an adequate substitute for professional interpretation, can lead to misunderstandings that compromise care, and in most cases is considered a violation of the patient’s civil rights under the Affordable Care Act.

Integrating language services seamlessly into the telehealth workflow is also key. If language support isn’t user-friendly, it can create extra burdens for both patients and providers. Patients may struggle to navigate complex systems to request interpretation, while providers may face disruptions. Without careful integration, telehealth’s potential for LEP populations is limited by poor user experience.

To fully realize telehealth’s potential, care delivery platforms must prioritize accessibility and patient experience, designing features that provide equitable access to quality care. This means genuinely understanding the needs of LEP and deaf or hard-of-hearing patients and offering effective communication channels.

Telehealth is becoming a staple in healthcare and the focus is shifting toward making it a permanent, optimized part of healthcare delivery and integrating it with existing platforms such as EHR systems. Incorporating language interpretation services into these platforms could clearly streamline workflows for clinicians, making it easier to connect patients with the right resources with a click of a button.

Additionally, integrating language services into telehealth workflows could not only improve the patient experience and patient care but also improve clinician satisfaction by reducing administrative burdens, allowing them to focus on patient care rather than logistical issues. This streamlined process can lead to higher job satisfaction and potentially reduce burnout rates for physicians and nurses alike.

The future of telehealth lies not just in maintaining its accessibility but in reimagining how it can serve every patient, regardless of language or ability. The responsibility rests on healthcare providers and tech innovators to forge a path where language and hearing impairments are no longer obstacles to quality care. The real challenge now? Not simply to sustain telehealth, but to elevate it to a level where it is genuinely inclusive, fully intuitive, and universally transformative.

Perspectives: Virtual Nursing Optimism Grows, But Providers Remain in Early Stages

December 10, 2024 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s contribution is from Lisbeth Votruba, MSN, RN, CAVRN, the Chief Clinical Officer for AvaSure. She is a pioneering nurse executive committed to continuous improvement of healthcare and the diffusion of new technologies to drive patient and staff safety. Her Master of Science in Nursing is from Columbia University School of Nursing. In this article, Ms. Votruba reviews the state of virtual nursing in US health systems and how they can progress into a system-wide strategy for integrating virtual care into widespread clinical use. AvaSure is an intelligent virtual care platform that deploys AI-powered virtual sitting and virtual nursing solutions and is a trusted partner of 1,100+ hospitals with experience in over 5,000 deployments.

Looking at healthcare news headlines, one might think inpatient virtual care is ubiquitous and everyone else is saving millions of dollars through virtual nursing. Or one might get the impression the nursing shortage is over because AI is easing administrative strain. It turns out the truth lies somewhere in the middle. 

A new survey reveals that most health systems remain in the early stages of virtual nursing adoption in acute care settings. In 2024, just 10% of hospital leaders and 14% of IT leaders have reached the phase where virtual care is a standard part of care delivery. In both groups, 30% reported no virtual care.

Those were among the major takeaways from two recent surveys of 369 hospital clinical and information technology leaders on the topic of inpatient virtual care.

Over the last year and a half, hospital leaders grew more firmly committed to the concept of virtual nursing with those believing it will be an integral part of care delivery, growing from 66% to 74%. However, as of October 2024, one out of three respondents had yet to implement virtual care in any inpatient department.

Progressing through the early stages of virtual care
Based on survey results and firsthand observation, most providers are still in the early exploration phase, which is stage 2 of the 5-stage Inpatient Virtual Care Maturity Model (see graphic). The 5-stage process represents a blueprint for care model redesign led by change-management-oriented, outcome-focused leaders.

Few survey respondents have progressed to stage 3, strategic advancement, in which providers establish infrastructure and advance virtual care use for admission, discharge, education, mentoring, and rounding. None has advanced to stage 5, mature virtual care, which is characterized by full integration of virtual care with an emphasis on optimizing workflows, operational efficiency, and outcomes.

Key survey findings

Despite these slow steps toward inpatient virtual care maturity, the annual survey revealed that:

  • 74% of hospital leaders believe virtual care is or will become integral to care delivery models in acute inpatient care, up from 66% in last year’s survey.
  • Hospital leaders continue to prioritize virtual nursing, with an average ranking of 6.2 on a prioritization scale of 1 to 10. Among health IT leaders, the average ranking was 6.
  • 46% of hospital leaders are piloting or have implemented virtual care for inpatient acute care, up from 38% a year ago.

Virtual care use cases and metrics
Hospital leaders consider the top use cases for virtual care to be virtual sitting (39%), patient discharge (33%), admission documentation support (32%), high-acuity monitoring (18%), patient education (18%), and virtual consults (18%).

Survey respondents’ most frequently cited metrics to measure the success of virtual care programs include patient safety, patient experience, workload burden for staff, patient outcomes, patient flow, nurse retention, workforce costs, and nurse safety, satisfaction and retention.

The use of virtual care solutions to reduce burnout among nurses and other clinicians is consistent with the US Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce. Researchers estimate that annual burnout-related turnover costs are $9 billion for nurses.

The path to virtual care maturity requires not just investing in new technology; it also requires organizational alignment, solid change management processes, and buy-in at all levels of the organization. Adopting an intelligent platform that seamlessly blends remote and in-person care with AI-powered virtual sitting and virtual nursing could be a critical step towards accelerating virtual care maturity. However, making a significant difference requires more than just adopting technology; it also calls for establishing specific objectives and taking deliberate steps to build these initiatives.

About the survey:

The Virtual Care Insight Survey was conducted online within the U.S. by Joslin Insight on behalf of AvaSure between September 19 and October 7, 2024. The survey received responses from 340 healthcare professionals primarily working in acute care settings. At least 30% were nurse leaders or key decision-makers (collectively referred to as hospital leaders). This study’s sample data is accurate to within +5.3 percentage points using a 95% confidence level.

To complement the survey of hospital leaders, AvaSure gathered insights from 29 hospital IT leaders (mostly CIOs) regarding Inpatient Virtual Care Adoption.

The full survey report is available for download here: https://avasure.com/resource/2024-virtual-care-insight-survey-report/

Perspectives: Embracing the Power of EiPaaS in 2024 and Beyond

July 18, 2024 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s article is by Scott Sirdevan, co-founder and CEO at Vorro. In this article, Mr. Sirdevan explains the concept of EiPaaS and how it can integrate the digital programs and tools used by healthcare providers, securely, to enable customers to bring together data from any system to the point of decision. He holds a master’s degree in computer information systems from Kansas State University and was the lead inventor on Vorro’s three BridgeGate patents.

Vorro empowers businesses with seamless integration solutions to connect, transform, and automate their data processes, ensuring efficiency and innovation in the digital landscape.

Despite the increasing risk of using digital tools in healthcare due to faulty systems and cyberattacks, the booming health tech sector is becoming more vital for healthcare systems than ever before, delivering efficient, proactive, and more accurate solutions to providers.

Today, one of the most popular health tech solutions is Enterprise Integration Platform as a Service (EiPaaS), with its market expected to reach $10.26 billion by 2027. Essentially a data integration solution, EiPaaS streamlines healthcare provider processes by creating a centralized space in the cloud for all programs and tools to work in unison.

EiPaaS has become increasingly critical as healthcare systems seek increased collaboration between insurance companies, suppliers, and patients and deal with more software programs than ever. This integration connects all operations, making tasks automated, timelier, and safer.

Let’s examine three reasons modern healthcare providers should embrace EiPaaS:

1.    Seamless Data Integration

Delivering seamless data integration in healthcare is crucial for patient care. Fragmented care, often due to delayed communications between suppliers, providers, and insurance companies or human error, creates adverse effects on patients with chronic illnesses.

EiPaaS in healthcare operations ensures efficient communication and minimizes human errors, from typos to delayed manual processes. Providers can seamlessly share information with suppliers quickly, ensuring low-latency system responses.

Access to up-to-date patient data, such as allergies, prescriptions, and other patient information, helps physicians make informed decisions.

2.    Enhanced Scalability & Security

Cybercrime rates have skyrocketed since 2020, with 2023 witnessing the most attacks on record. Cybersecurity is paramount in healthcare, and EiPaaS solutions address these concerns by providing robust security measures. The “enterprise” in EiPaaS signifies a higher grade of fault tolerance, scalability, and cybersecurity, meeting standards like HIPAA and other government-mandated compliance requirements.

Often, healthcare providers hire vendors without vetting their cybersecurity stance, which puts their services and patients’ information at risk. In 2023, there were 725 large data breaches in the healthcare sector, exposing over 133 million records. Hacking incidents accounted for 79.72% of these breaches​ (The HIPAA Journal)​​ (HHS.gov)​​ (The HIPAA Journal)​. EiPaaS solutions feature up-to-date compliance, secure data sharing, and encryption, ensuring that digital services are safe and trusted.

Scalability is another significant advantage of EiPaaS. One of the biggest benefits is the ability to grow and shrink based on customer demand. This flexibility allows healthcare providers to handle large data loads efficiently. For instance, several of our customers have needed to load a large amount of data in a short time, and EiPaaS can scale up to support these large one-time bulk loads and conversions. This scalability ensures that healthcare providers can dynamically manage their data needs without compromising performance or security.

3.    Optional Fully Managed Services

A significant advantage of EiPaaS is its optional fully managed services. These services are beneficial for healthcare organizations in many ways. Healthcare organizations can focus on their core business, utilizing the EiPaaS provider to handle all Integration responsibilities and support. Managed services are more cost-effective and in sync with the specific systems healthcare organizations use daily.

As health tech solutions become more critical and scrutinized by regulators, data integration services like EiPaaS are taking center stage. EiPaaS’s robust cybersecurity practices, full audited chain of custody of data, and fault-tolerance scalability integration are what modern healthcare systems need today, leveraging technological advances to elevate service quality, resulting in excellent patient care.

For Perspectives editorial and other promotional opportunities, contact Editor Donna.

Perspectives: How Collaborative Care Combats Physician Burnout

May 30, 2024 | by

TTA has an open invitation to industry leaders to contribute to our Perspectives non-promotional opinion and thought leadership area. Today’s contribution is from Sussan Nwogwugwu, DNP, PMHNP, Clinical Leader at Done. In this article, Dr. Nwogwugwu discusses physician burnout, how it can affect delivery of care, and how collaborative and comprehensive care can mitigate burnout.

Done is a leading provider of telehealth services for individuals with ADHD, dedicated to delivering comprehensive, patient-first care. With a network that spans more than 35 states, Done connects individuals with ADHD to experienced, board-certified providers for personalized treatment plans and medication management. 

Physician burnout is a significant concern, as it affects not only physician well-being but the quality of care they deliver.

The state of primary physician burnout
The American Medical Association found that at the end of 2021, nearly 63% of physicians had reported burnout symptoms. This was roughly a 66% increase from the preceding year, highlighting the urgent need for systemic changes to support physician mental and emotional health. Increasing burnout is attributed to excessive workload, administrative burdens and lack of support and resources.

Collaborative care and its benefits
Collaboration between a team of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals decreases clinician workload and leads to enhanced job satisfaction. Additionally, feelings of isolation and burnout among physicians are reduced. Most importantly, the continued skill building and exchange of knowledge contribute to professional growth.

For mental health patients, collaborative care ensures holistic care and access to specialized services and continuity of care, particularly for patients managing chronic conditions.

Comprehensive care supports providers
A collaborative care model is designed to reduce the burden on primary care providers; and enhance clinician well-being and patient care by integrating comprehensive behavioral health support within the primary care framework. Comprehensive care supports providers in several ways:

Impact analysis
Impact analysis, primarily powered by data analytics software, provides insights into treatment effectiveness. It is particularly helpful in guiding interventions.

Impact analysis further addresses burnout and other issues by identifying areas for improvement, ultimately guaranteeing effective resource allocation and helping track the progress of interventions over time for better adjustments.

Evidence-based interventions (EBI)
EBI enables providers to use resources efficiently by enlightening them on what works and does not. It also enhances job satisfaction and morale, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes. Finally, using evidence-based treatments reduces the chances of facing legal action if something goes wrong.

Physicians leverage technology to learn more about EBIs across various medical fields; that can include digital libraries/databases, clinical decision support systems, mobile applications, telehealth platforms and online resources.

Frequent reviews and an inclusive patient approach
Frequent reviews help identify and address areas for practice improvement due to informative feedback they provide. An inclusive patient approach reduces burnout and provides a sense of fulfillment among providers by nurturing greater patient engagement and increasing satisfaction.

Comprehensive care supports patients
In addition to benefiting health care providers, comprehensive care benefits patients, too.

Impact analysis
Impact analysis fosters an in-depth understanding of a patient’s needs and responses to treatment, leading to more personalized care. Patients can also make informed decisions about their health and treatment options, guided by physician recommendations on helpful online resources.

Evidence-based interventions
EBI supports patients, reduces the risk of adverse effects, and ascertains that patients receive appropriate, high-quality, rigorously tested and proven care. Additionally, since EBI is founded on research and clinical evidence, it guarantees better health outcomes.

Frequent reviews and an inclusive patient approach
Frequent reviews enable personalized care and continuous treatment plan adjustment per each patient’s progress and feedback. Remote patient monitoring technologies like smart watches or mobile health apps help to track key health metrics and symptoms, thereby fostering patient empowerment and ensuring adherence to treatment plans by involving them in their own care.

Why medicine is shifting toward value-based care
Medicine is gradually shifting to a value-based care model to deliver patient-centered, effective, cost-efficient healthcare. This is in response to the conventional fee-for-service model that incentivizes quantity over quality, which results in unnecessary procedures, fragmented care and unsustainable healthcare costs.

Technology, a key defining factor in value-based care, leverages EHRs, telemedicine platforms and data analytics tools to refine ADHD care and eliminate draining tasks that lead to burnout.

Telemedicine platforms enable remote consultations, making it easier for patients to access specialized services without the need for physical visits. Additionally, data analytics tools track patient outcomes and identify trends, allowing for more personalized and effective treatment plans.

Through integrating EHRs, telemedicine platforms and advanced data analytics, multidisciplinary healthcare teams can streamline communication and coordination. EHRs provide team members access to up-to-date patient information, thereby reducing errors and enhancing continuity of care.

Collaborative + comprehensive care = value-based care
Collaborative and comprehensive care, combined with technology tools, contribute to value-based care by enhancing patient experience and treatment outcomes; and optimizing resource utilization.

These care models collectively promote improved population health, foster accountability and transparency and encourage continuous improvement.

Through collaborative care models, the value of health care is maximized and aligns with value-based care goals, alleviating increasing levels of physician burnout.