DOJ ‘takedown’ charges 86 defendants with $4.5 bn in fraudulent telemedicine claims in largest ever action

October 2, 2020 | by

We unpack the 2020 National Health Care Fraud and Opioid Takedown. Closing out September was the largest simultaneous group of Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal agency coordinated actions concerning fraudulent medical claims. The indictments charged 345 defendants, including 100 medical professionals, across 51 federal districts, for submitting fraudulent claims against Medicare and private insurance programs totaling over $6 bn.

The vast bulk–$4.5 bn–of the fraudulent claims were classified as ‘telemedicine’ and were perpetrated by more than 86 criminal defendants in 19 judicial districts. The remainder of the charges rounding to the $6 bn were for substance abuse treatment and opioid distribution fraud: more than $845 million connected to substance abuse treatment facilities, or “sober homes,” and more than $806 million connected to other health care fraud and illegal opioid distribution schemes across the country. 

These ‘telemedicine’ claims included unnecessary durable medical equipment (DME), genetic or diagnostic testing, and prescription drugs. The typical scam worked like this:

  • Telemedicine company executives paid doctors and nurse practitioners to order unnecessary durable medical equipment, genetic and other diagnostic testing, and medications, often for pain, for patients
  • The patient for whom it was ordered had either no contact with the doctor or nurse practitioner or only a brief telephonic conversation. The person may not have been a patient of the practice.
  • DME companies, genetic testing laboratories, and pharmacies then purchased those orders in exchange for illegal kickbacks and bribes, then submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, state Medicaid, and private insurers which are Medicare Advantage plan sponsors

Most of the Federal charges in the indictments here cite Federal anti-kickback statutes in both criminal and civil law.

The nationwide charges were executed by an alphabet soup of agencies at the Federal level:

  • Enforcement actions were by the Criminal Division, Fraud Section’s Health Care Fraud Unit, in conjunction with its Health Care Fraud and Appalachian Regional Prescription Opioid (ARPO) Strike Force program, and its core partners, the US Attorneys’ Offices, Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
  • Prosecution is by Health Care Fraud and ARPO Strike Force teams from the DOJ’s Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, 43 US Attorneys’ Offices nationwide, and agents from HHS-OIG, FBI, DEA, and other various Federal and state law enforcement agencies. 

Unpacking the actions which reveal some dizzying schemes, some of the more interesting individual cases against fraudulent ‘telemedicine’ in the 2020 National Health Care Fraud and Opioid Takedown took place in Florida and Illinois:

  • Middle District of Florida: a telemarketing operation collected the personal information of Medicare beneficiaries, purchased doctor’s orders for orthotic braces, and then submitted more than $25 million in claims to Medicare
  • Southern District of Florida: three telemedicine executives and three owners of durable medical equipment companies were charged and pled guilty in connection with more than $175 million in fraud loss
    • Editor’s note: none of the principals of QuivvyTech have been identified by this Editor in the ‘Takedown’ indictments and corresponding information documents listed for the Southern District. Humana’s civil suit against QuivvyTech is here [TTA 27 August]. 
  • Northern District of Illinois: seven defendants were charged with defrauding insurance programs of more than $205 million. One is a very busy doctor who, according to the indictment, was the top prescriber in the United States for multiple genetic testing billing codes. He worked for more than 10 telemedicine companies, was licensed in 17 states, and allegedly paid five of his friends and relatives to sign telemedicine orders in his name for medically unnecessary genetic testing and durable medical equipment. “In total, the scheme allegedly resulted in $145 million in false and fraudulent claims billed to Medicare and approximately $54.6 million paid by Medicare for claims associated with this doctor’s name.” 
  • Your Editor cannot resist the twist that ‘telemedicine’ fraud took in her home state of New Jersey. Two cases involving telemarketing, senior health fairs, and door-to-door sales (!) of genetic testing, including genetic cancer screening, had a total fraud value of nearly $1bn. A multi-jurisdictional case involving the District of New Jersey, the Middle District of Florida, and the Southern District of California also involved the ordering of orthotic braces signed off by ‘telemedicine’ doctors who didn’t speak or only briefly spoke to Medicare beneficiaries/members. $871 million purchased a great deal of real estate, personal luxury items, and nightlife events for the two owners of the DME companies involved, who incidentally entered guilty pleas.

A biotech extra. In the list of multi-jurisdictional actions is a scheme to mislead investors, manipulate a biotechnology company’s stock price, and defraud payers for COVID-19 and allergy testing. The company named in the complaint is Arrayit Corporation, a publicly-traded company (OTC) located in Sunnyvale, California. This was jointly prosecuted by the National Rapid Response Strike Force, the Market Integrity and Major Fraud Unit of DOJ’s Fraud Section, and the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. The separate Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charges on the veracity of their COVID-19 test is here. For those with a speculative bent, the current value of the stock is zero.

DOJ press release. Also FierceHealthcare’s overview.

Editor’s note: ‘Telemedicine’ has been placed in quotes to differentiate these scams from legitimate provider-patient telemedicine video/audio consults or telephonic medical visits which may involve patient diagnosis and prescribing. These are now more frequently called telehealth. The differentiation is already well understood by our professional Readers and is made for the benefit of our non-professional Readers who may view this article on Twitter and LinkedIn feeds, or via Google search. 

Doro adds Spain’s Victrix SocSan to its growing brand portfolio for £1.28 million plus shares

September 30, 2020 | by

Sweden’s Doro has a new addition to its portfolio, and it’s an interesting one. Victrix SocSan, headquartered in Madrid, coordinates health and social care primarily through data analysis blending different health and social care sources “to provide low-cost yet highly effective proactive interventions for chronic disease management, elder care, and wellbeing.” It concentrates on care workflow and information exchange, according to their website. Unlike previous Doro acquisitions such as ElderCare UK [TTA 11 Aug], Invicta Telecare, parent of Centra Pulse and Connect [TTA 19 Sept 19], and Welbeing [7 June 18], it’s about the technology and not the territory or system. “A strong technical platform and knowledge is an important component in our strategy. The Victrix Care Platform gives us new opportunities to develop and offer coordinated and proactive care services, both in individual and assisted living, ” according to Doro Group President and CEO Carl-Johan Zetterberg Boudrie. 

The acquisition cost is modest compared to some of the US blockbuster deals we’ve seen lately. Cash upfront is SEK 14.8 million (UK£1.28 million, US$1.65 million, €1.41 million). The 232,744 shares in Doro AB closed today at SEK47.50 which is about SEK11.05 million (UK£956 thousand, US$1.2 million, €1.1 million). There are other payouts noted in the press release. Their results will be consolidated into Doro’s from 30 September. According to the release, the Victrix team will be joining Doro. Their CEO and founder, Joe Killen, is a familiar figure in the UK from his nearly 20 years at Tunstall Spain and Southern Europe. Hat tip to one of our UK Readers who wishes to stay anonymous.

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

September 2, 2020 | by

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

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

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

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

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

Is the NHS ready to adopt telemedicine through and through–and is telemedicine ready?

August 27, 2020 | by

This analysis by Dominic Tyer in Pharmaphorum discusses the rapid adoption of telehealth during the COVID pandemic, both telephonic and online, to keep people in touch with their doctors. Health Secretary Matt Hancock quantified the changes wrought as “I’ve lost count of the number of times someone said to me: ‘what would have taken months took minutes’.” The article goes on to quote him as saying that COVID-19 has “catalysed deep structural shifts in healthcare that were already underway”, citing as examples data-driven decision-making, working as a system, and telemedicine. In fact, to Secretary Hancock, “From now on, all consultations should be teleconsultations unless there’s a clinical reason not to.”

For all the advances, Mr. Tyer points out flaws such as safeguarding sensitive health issues, particularly for young people, use by rare disease patients and those with a genetic condition, and reaching the 10 percent of the population who do not use the internet. All of these are significant. He concludes that “in the UK there’s clearly the political will and healthcare backing for wider use of telemedicine by the NHS, despite some, as-yet not entirely resolved, technological and safety issues.”

Will the UK revert to ‘underuse’, as the US has rolled back as well as practices have reopened? (What is ‘underuse’ defined as anyway?) Will these issues be resolved or ignored in a push forward for telehealth? And teleconsultations as a norm, with in-person an exception, is perhaps at this time, and in improving health outcomes, an overreach? Hat tips to Roy Lilley of the nhsManagers.net newsletter and Steve Hards

QuivvyTech: a ‘telehealth’ company, sued by Humana in telemarketing scheme (US)

August 27, 2020 | by

It was inevitable–the first alleged fraud and lawsuit involving a ‘telehealth’ company. The interestingly named QuivvyTech, which has styled itself as a telehealth company with “virtual care in general medicine, mental health, and complex care”, has been sued by insurance giant Humana. The grounds are that QuivvyTech telemarketers cold-called Humana members, who are generally members of Medicare plans, asked them about common ailments, and claimed they were working with Humana. They then recorded information that was sent to QuivvyTech physicians who would prescribe the members pricey and unnecessary creams (content undisclosed) fulfilled by co-conspirator pharmacies with QuivvyTech. The physicians listed in the suit electronically signed prescriptions for the members without reviewing patient history or having a prior relationship with the patient.

Humana not only is alleging harm in the payer-member relationship, but also lost millions in fraudulent claim payments for visits and medications. 

The lawsuit by Humana seeks treble damages, plus interest and fees, from QuivvyTech. It was filed in the US Southern District of Florida as many of the scammed members lived in Florida. QuivvyTech is based in Boca Raton.

Defendants in the suit include Frank Michelin, associated with QuivvyTech; Reliable Medical Supplies and Reliable Document Solutions, a telemedicine company with about 200 physicians; and physicians Jeffrey Mahon, MD, Elie Hercule, MD, Samuel Teniola, MD, Louis Mojicar, MD, Ananda De Silva, MD, and Jeffrey Stern, MD.

One wonders where QuivvyTech obtained Humana members’ phone numbers and information. 

QuivvyTech is still recruiting for physicians on job boards such as ZipRecruiter and StaffPhysicians.com. Becker’s Hospital Review, Healthcare Finance, Fierce Healthcare

Amwell plans $100 million IPO, plus $100 million from Google as a kickoff

August 26, 2020 | by

As expected [TTA 6 Aug], Amwell on Monday filed S-1 forms with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registering them for an IPO to raise about $100 million. The number and amount of shares on the New York Stock Exchange, under ticker symbol AMWL, were not disclosed. Interestingly, and somewhat unexpectedly, Google’s cloud business is taking a private placement of $100 million in shares equal to the IPO price, to be executed on the IPO closing.

The partnership will mean that Amwell’s cloud services on Amazon Web Services (AWS) will be moving to Google Cloud. Amwell will also move some video performance capabilities to that platform, and will also cooperate on technology plus build out a dedicated sales effort to expand Amwell’s footprint in the sector.

Amwell’s telehealth business, like Teladoc’s, skyrocketed during the worst of the pandemic shutdown. According to the CNBC article on the IPO, Amwell told them in May that it’s seen a 1,000 percent increase in visits due to coronavirus and closer to 3,000 – 4,000 percent in some places (which without further data is meaningless). The IPO filing stated that revenue was up 77 percent January-June 2020 versus same period 2019, from $69 million to $122 million. Profits are not following, however. Its net loss nearly tripled over the same period, growing from $41 million in the first six months of 2019 to $111 million in the first half of this year. Seeking Alpha has the operating loss at a slightly higher $113.58 million.

This past May, Amwell also raised $194 million in a second Series C [TTA 23 May]. Their financing to date is over $700 million.

Amwell states that it provides telehealth solutions for over 2,000 hospitals and 55 health plan partners with over 36,000 employers, covering over 80 million lives, a higher metric than members. This is in comparison with Teladoc which claims 51.5 million members, 50 health plans, 70 global insurers, and 12,000 clients in 175 countries. Amwell is having to compete with a larger suite of services that a Teladoc-Livongo combination will eventually offer. Amwell’s by-contrast modest IPO and private placement corresponds to their relative size, but a contrarian would also look at Teladoc’s huge expenditures for InTouch Health ($1bn) and Livongo ($18.5bn) and rightly be concerned about their runway to ROI and profitability.

Reflections in a Gimlet Eye: further skeptical thoughts on the Teladoc acquisition of Livongo (updated)

August 11, 2020 | by

Gimlet EyePerhaps it’s Reflections in a Gimlet Eye, but this Editor remains bemused and slightly dyspeptic about the acquisition of ‘health signals’ remote patient monitoring management platform Livongo by telehealth giant Teladoc.

Here’s the latest, courtesy of Credit Suisse equity research analyst Jailendra Singh on deal rationale and the potential synergies, based on his Q&A with Teladoc and Livongo management (link here):

  • Livongo: “The company was not for sale, and LVGO did not view the transaction with TDOC as a sale. Instead, management views the deal as a merger of the two leaders in virtual care.” 
  • It had nothing to do with pressure from CVS and UnitedHealth Group (UNH). 
  • There are major cross-selling opportunities, starting with an overlap of 25 percent of their clients. There are also opportunities with the InTouch Health client base in acute care, Aetna plus UNH on the health plan side, and employer administrative services only (ASO) plans. This is part of the calculation of synergies totaling $500 million in 2025 which they believe are conservative given the math.
  • They are also seeking to approach their client base before the closing through a reseller agreement, as Teladoc was able to do with InTouch.

Mr. Singh’s analysis is conservative and sober from a strictly financial viewpoint. His two-page analysis is, as usual, worth the read. 

But then we stumble across one particularly helium-charged claim. It’s projected that Teladoc and Livongo would have a combined company market cap of $38 bn, whereas the pre-pandemic value of the companies was $8 bn. (Steve Kraus, Partner at Bessemer Venture Partners, now on the board of Ginger, as quoted in Forbes). That is optimistic, considering that patient primary care virtual visits have flattened down to about 7.4 percent of visits as of June (Commonwealth Fund/Harvard/Phreesia study). It’s assuming a great deal that people will continue to shy away from in-person care going forward. Perhaps to a degree this will, as in-person fear is only starting to flatten, but not everything can be done virtually, even RPM. Telehealth and RPM also present challenges for practices in value-based care models, in workflows, and even with the liberalization of Medicare reimbursements, financially.

Livongo’s great asset, which was understandably compelling for Teladoc, is chronic condition management, RPM, and all that patient data, which can be broadened past their diabetes base (with a small one in behavioral health courtesy of their myStrength acquisition) into other chronic conditions which was Livongo’s strategy anyway. To be determined is how compelling this will be for Teladoc’s customer base and for new customers, particularly if the economic environment is constrained and health plans don’t get on board. 

So why is Mr. Market not mad about this ‘merger’? TDOC has taken a spill since its (adjusted) close on 4 August at $249, and is trading below $200 at $193. LVGO took a lesser hit, from $144 to $121. Another Bessemer Venture Partners investor, Morgan Cheatham, in the Forbes article linked above, was quoted that Livongo had clear market leadership in the employer and health plan market, then expressed surprise at why Livongo agreed to be acquired: “The company had a real shot at becoming a $100 billion business by running the ‘digital hospital’ playbook. In some ways, the acquisition feels premature.” Teladoc’s COO David Sides promised that the combined company will aid practices in the transition from hospital to home care, touting the consumer focus of both companies. (Have they consulted already burdened and strained providers how this can be made easier for them and fit into value-based care models as well as their financials?) But they may have to make more acquisitions to facilitate this. So $18.5 billion plus $1 bn for InTouch isn’t enough to get the job done?

Is it synergy, the wave of the future, or an overloaded Christmas Tree of features, not benefits?

Reminder: to date, neither company has been profitable.

So, what does this mean for other digital health companies? Initially, it’s quite positive that Teladoc could round up nearly $20bn in six months. John Halamka MD, a well-known digital health visionary now at Mayo Clinic, sees it as a bridge to the digital health ecosystem including other companies. A contrarian view was expressed by Mr. Cheatham.  Teladoc-Livongo is a challenge for other digital health companies in that they won’t, and cannot, be Teladocs and Livongos–in other words, an unrealistically high bar for them. “Why can’t Telavongo build this?”

Finally, a personal and slightly jaundiced view from this Editor. Let’s take a good hard look at the Human Factors that make companies go. This is an acquisition by Teladoc of smaller Livongo, despite the merger statements. Employees in both companies are wondering who will go, who will stay, who they will report to if they stay, and where they will be. They have about four to six months to mull what their future might look like at a tough economic time. This will — not may, will–have an effect on operations and attitudes, especially at Livongo.

There are some doubleplus ungood signs that make the assertion that this is a “merger” of companies questionable:

  • Jennifer Schneider, MD, president of Livongo, has stated that both companies are currently hiring and don’t plan layoffs as a result of the merger (Becker’s Health IT). Blanket statements like this are usually made at the start to assure employees. Anyone who has been through a merger knows there are overlapping areas such as HR, marketing, and financial. There are only so many chairs at the organizational table especially at the director and above level. The happy talk doesn’t change the reality that not everyone will be given the option to stay.
  • Statements on similar cultures notwithstanding, the fact is that both companies have different cultures and experiences because they have radically different histories and personalities running them. This Editor would suspect that Livongo employees, having come up in a young and smaller company, in an intense entrepreneurial environment, with employees who were among the first 50 or 100, have a great identification with Livongo and pride in their success.
  • Not one Livongo senior executive was named publicly as taking a new operational role in the merged entity. (Board seats don’t count. But then again, they will be walking away with a major payday, reputed to be in the hundreds of millions for the top executives. What they will do with their future is a major unknown.)
  • The HQ will be in Purchase. Most Livongo employees are in California.
  • The company will be named Teladoc and will not be renamed. That says a lot, even though industry wags are calling it Telavongo and other names.

One would hope that both companies make every effort to reorganize the company staffs in a way where layoffs are minimal, those who are packaged out are treated generously, but better, valued employees from both companies are retained and incentivized to stay–sooner rather than in 4th quarter–in a fair and unbiased evaluative process in how they support their businesses presently and going forward as part of the combined companies future. But this is not typically the case.

One would also hope that the clients and individuals who pay the bills were told, timed with the public announcement, that this was happening and what it means for them. Leaving them to read the announcement online is usually what happens. It’s not automatic, and I’ve seen this treated as an afterthought in both large companies and small, with line of business folks scrambling to put together customer messages, and delayed in getting them approved as after all they have to go through both corporate and investor communications. This is typically the case, as communications cease to be a priority at the market/LOB level when the SEC or DOJ are involved.

Reminder: the Human Factors will fly this aircraft–or auger it in. 

Agree? Disagree? Comments welcomed.  TTA’s earlier ‘skeptical take’ commentary here.

An admittedly skeptical take on the $18.5 billion Teladoc acquisition of Livongo (updated for additional analysis)

August 6, 2020 | by

Gimlet EyeIs it time to call back The Gimlet Eye from her peaceful Remote Pacific Island? Shock acquisitions like Wednesday’s news that Teladoc is buying ‘applied health signals’ platform developer Livongo may compel this Editor to Send a Message by Carrier Seagull. 

Most of the articles (listed at the bottom) list the facts as Teladoc listed them in their announcement. We’ll recap ‘just the facts’ here, like Joe Friday of ‘Dragnet’ fame:  

  • The merged company will be called Teladoc and be headquartered in Purchase, NY. There is no mention of what will happen to operations and staff currently at Livongo’s Mountain View California HQ. 
  • The value of the acquisition is estimated at $18.5 bn, based on the value of Teladoc’s shares on 4 August. As both are public companies (Livongo IPO’d 25 July 2019, barely a year ago), each share of Livongo will be exchanged for 0.5920x shares of Teladoc plus cash consideration of $11.33 for each Livongo share. When completed, existing Teladoc shareholders will own 58 percent of the company and Livongo shareholders 42 percent. 
  • Closing is stated as expected to be in 4th Quarter 2020
  • Expected 2020 pro forma revenue is expected to be approximately $1.3 billion, representing year over year pro forma growth of 85 percent.

The combination of the two is, this Editor admits, a powerhouse and quite advantageous for both. It is also another sign that digital health is both contracting and recombining. Teladoc has over 70 million users in the US alone for telemedicine services and operates in 175 countries. Livongo is much smaller, with 410,000 diabetes users (up over 113 percent) and over 1,300 clients. They reported 2nd Q results on Tuesday with a revenue lift of 119 percent to $91.9 million but with a net loss of $1.6 million. 

What makes Livongo worth $18.5 bn for Teladoc? Livongo has made a major name (to be discarded, apparently) in first, diabetes management, but has broadened it into a category it calls ‘Applied Health Signals’. Most of us would call it chronic condition management using a combination of vital signs monitoring, patient data sets, and information from its health coaches to make recommendations and effect behavior change. Perhaps we should call it their ‘secret sauce’. For Teladoc, Livongo extends their virtual care services and provider network with a data-driven health management company not dependent on virtual visits, and integrates the virtual visit with Livongo’s coaching. It also puts Teladoc miles ahead of competition: soon-to-IPO Amwell, Doctor on Demand ($75 million Series D, partnerships with Walmart and Humana), MDLive, and ‘blank check’ SOC Telehealth. For Livongo’s main competitor in the diabetes area, Omada Health, it puts Omada certainly in a less competitive spot, or makes it attractive as an acquisition target.

It is also a huge bet that given the huge boost given by the COVID pandemic, the trend towards remote, consumer healthcare and management is unstoppable. Their projection is (from the release): expected 2020 pro forma revenue of approximately $1.3 billion, representing year over year pro forma growth of 85 percent; in year 2, revenue synergies of $100 million, reaching $500 million on a run rate basis by 2025. 

Taking a look at this acquisition between the press release and press coverage lines:

  • The market same day responded poorly to this acquisition. Teladoc was off nearly 19 percent, Livongo off 11 percent. (Shares typically recover next day in this pattern.) Livongo had, as mentioned, recently IPO’d and was experiencing excellent growth compared to Teladoc which was boosted by the pandemic lockdown. This Editor also recalls Teladoc’s financial difficulties in late 2018 with the resignation of its COO/CFO on insider trading and #MeToo charges.
  • The projected closing is fast for a merger of this size–five months.
    • Teladoc does business in the Medicare (Federal) and Medicaid (state) segments. It would surprise this Editor if the acquisition does not require review on the Federal (CMS, DOJ) and state health insurance levels, in addition to the SEC.
    • Merging the two organizations operationally and experiencing all those synergies is not done quickly, and cannot officially happen until after the closing. A lot is done formally behind the scenes as permitted, which has the effect of hitting the rest of the company like a hammer.
  • Unusually, the release does not advise on what Livongo senior executives, including Livongo founder Glen Tullman and CEO Zane Burke, will be coming over to Teladoc. The only sharing announced will be on the Board of Directors. It’s quite an exit for the senior Livongo staff.
  • Both have grown through acquisition. These typically present small to large organizational problems in merging the operations of these companies yet another time into yet another structure. There’s also always some level of client discomfiture in these mergers as they are also the last ones to know.
    • Livongo bought myStrength in 2019, RetroFit in 2018, and Diabeto in 2017. 
    • Teladoc just closed on 1 August its acquisition of far smaller, specialized hospital/health system telehealth provider InTouch Health. Originally a bargain (in retrospect) at $600 million in $150M cash and 4.6 million shares of TDOC stock, after 1 July’s closing, due to the rise in Teladoc’s stock, the cost ballooned to well over $1bn.
  • Neither company has ever been profitable. 

Your Editor can speak personally and recently to the wrench in the works that acquisitions/mergers of this size present to both organizations. Livongo is a relatively young and entrepreneurial organization in California with about 700 employees, compared to Teladoc’s approximately 2,000 or more internationally. Their communications and persona stress strong mission-driven qualities. On both sides, but especially on the acquired company side, people have to do their short and long term work amid the uncertainty of what this will mean to them. Senior management is distracted in endless meetings on what the merged organization will look like–departments, where will they be, who stays, who is packaged out, and when. Especially when the press releases make a point of compatible cultures, on the contrary, you may be assured that the cultures are very different. The bottom line: companies do not achieve $60 million in cost synergies without interrupting the careers of more than a few of their employees.

Another delicate area is Livongo’s client base, both individual and enterprise. How they are being communicated with is not necessarily skillful and reassuring. Often this part is delayed because the people who do this in the field aren’t prepared.

One has to admire Teladoc, almost without needing a breath, coming up with $18.5 billion quite that quickly from their financing partners after the InTouch acquisition. The growth claimed for the combined organization is extremely aggressive, on top of already aggressive projections for them separately. It’s 18x 2021 enterprise value to sales (EV/S) targets. The premium paid on the Livongo shares is also stunning: $159 per share including $550 million in convertible debt.  If patients start to return to offices and urgent care, Teladoc may have trouble meeting its aggressive goals factored into both share prices, as Seeking Alpha will explain.

Editor’s final comment: In the early stage of her marketing career, this Editor had a seat on the sidelines to much the same happening in the post-deregulation airline business–debt, buyouts, LBOs, and huge financings. Then there is the morning after when it’s all sorted out.

Wednesday’s coverage: TechCrunch, Investors Business Daily, STATNews, mHealth Intelligence, FierceHealthcare, MotleyFool.com

Joint announcement website    Investor Presentation    Hat tip to an industry observer Reader for assistance with the financial analysis.

For a follow-up analysis (with apologies to Carson McCullers): Reflections in a Gimlet Eye: further skeptical thoughts on the Teladoc acquisition of Livongo

While telehealth virtual office visits flatten, overall up 300-fold; FCC finalizes COVID-19 telehealth funding program (US)

July 22, 2020 | by

As expected, the trend of telehealth visits versus in-person is flattening as primary care offices and urgent care clinics reopen. Yet the overall trend is up through May–a dizzying 300-fold, as tracked by the new Epic Health Research Network (EHRN–yes, that Epic). Their analysis compares 15 March-8 May 2020 to the same dates in 2019 using data from 22 health systems in 17 states which cover seven million patients. It also constructs a visit diagnosis profile comparison, which leads with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, pain, and diabetes–with the 2020 addition of — unsurprisingly — anxiety.

POLITICO Future Pulse analyzed EHRN data into July (which was not located in a cross-check by this Editor) and came up with its usual ‘the cup has a hole in it’ observation: “TELEHEALTH BOOM BUST”. But that is absolutely in line with the Commonwealth Fund/Phreesia/Harvard study which as we noted tailed off as a percentage of total visits by 46 percent [TTA 1 July]. But even POLITICO’s gloomy headline can’t conceal that telehealth in the 37 healthcare systems surveyed was a flatline up to March and leveled off to slightly below the 2 million visit peak around 15 April. 

Where POLITICO’s gloom ‘n’ doom is useful is in the caution of why telehealth has fallen off, other than the obvious of offices reopening. There’s the post-mortem experience of smaller practices which paints an unflattering picture of unreadiness, rocky starts, and unaffordability:

  • Skype and FaceTime are not permanent solutions, as not HIPAA-compliant
  • New telehealth software can cost money. However, this Editor also knows from her business experience that population health software often has a HIPAA-compliant telehealth module which is relatively simple to use and is usually free.
  • It’s the training that costs, more in time than money. If the practice is in a value-based care model, that is done by market staff either from the management services organization (MSO) or the software provider.
  • Reimbursement. Even with CMS loosening requirements and coding, it moved so quickly that providers haven’t been reimbursed properly.
  • Equipment and broadband access. Patients, especially older patients, don’t all have smartphones or tablets. Not everyone has Wi-Fi or enough data–or that patient lives in a 2-bar area. Some practices aren’t on EHRs either.
  • Without RPM, accurate device integration, and an integrated tracking platform, F2F telehealth can only be a virtual visit without monitoring data.

Perhaps not wanting to paint a totally doomy picture (advertising sponsorship, perhaps?), the interview with Ed Lee, the head of Kaiser Permanente’s telehealth program, confirmed that the past few months were extraordinary for them, even with a decent telehealth base. “We were seeing somewhere around 18 percent of telehealth [visits] pre-covid. Around the height of it, we’re seeing 80 percent.” They also have pilots in place to put technology in the homes of those who need it, and realize its limitations.

Speaking of limitations, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) COVID-19 Telehealth Program, authorized by the CARES Act, is over and out. The final tranche consisted of 25 applications for the remaining $10.73 million, with a final total of 539 funding applications up to the authorized $200 million. Applicants came from 47 states, Washington, DC, and Guam. FCC release. To no one’s surprise, 40 Congresscritters want to extend it as a ‘bold step’ but are first demanding that Chair Ajit Pai do handsprings and provide all sorts of information on the reimbursement program which does not provide upfront money but reimburses eligible expenditures. That will take a few months. You’d think they’d read a few things on the FCC website first. mHealth Intelligence

FCC approves 70 more COVID-19 telehealth funding applications for an additional $32 million

July 1, 2020 | by

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today (1 July) approved 70 additional applications for funding telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. This funding covers both urban and rural providers, from large health systems to local community health centers. The funds for this thirteenth group totals $31.63 million of the $189.27 million in total funds awarded. To date, the FCC’s COVID-19 Telehealth Program, authorized by the CARES Act, has approved 514 funding applications in 46 states plus Washington, D.C. Equipment covered includes telehealth, computers, smartphones, tablets, remote patient monitoring equipment, and software.

A small sample of this group of healthcare organizations:

  •  Avera Health, South Dakota
  • Barnabas Health in NJ for remote patient monitoring equipment
  • Boston Children’s Hospital
  • Greater Philadelphia Health Action
  • Lehigh Valley Health Network in Allentown PA
  • Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, NY
  • Ryan Health in Manhattan
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital
  • UPMC in Harrisburg PA

FCC release. Full list of Telehealth Program recipients here.

COVID effect on US practices: in-person visits down 37%, telehealth peaks at 14%; ATA asks Congress to make expansion permanent

June 30, 2020 | by

A Commonwealth Fund/Harvard University/Phreesia tracking study of outpatient visits in 50,000 US healthcare practices, specialty as well as primary care, has tracked the effect of the COVID pandemic on practice visits during the period 8 March through 20 June. Using as their baseline the week of 1-7 March, which was the last ‘normal’ week in line with February, the results are not unexpected:

  • From 15 March to 20 June (three months), practice visits, including telehealth, plummeted 37 percent
  • Disproportionately affected were pediatricians, pulmonologists, and surgical specialties such as orthopedics
  • Against the baseline, week of 14 June visits are still down 11 percent
  • The nadir was 29 March, off 59 percent
  • The rebound tracks the same by US region, with the least dip in South Central and Mountain regions. (The most affected, of course, are New England-Mid-Atlantic and Pacific, with the highest COVID rates and the least rebound.)
  • Looking at the ‘rebound week’ of 14 June, the effects linger on in pediatrics, pulmonology, and (interestingly) behavioral health. (Anecdotally, behavioral health patients are continuing with telehealth for convenience versus the physical visit.)
  • Telehealth visits took off starting 8 March and at their peak were 13.9 percent of visits (19 April)
  • Since 26 April, telehealth visits have declined as in-person visits resume, and are at 7.4 percent as of 14 June (46.7 percent less). However, compared to the baseline of nearly zero (0.1 percent), it’s nearly a 140 percent increase.

Phreesia is a scheduling and patient check-in platform. The practices surveyed are Phreesia clients, covering 1,600 provider organizations, with 50,000 providers in 50 states.

Physicians were also interviewed as part of the study. The office operation has had to change, and the patient experience in returning to practices is very different. Making up deferred care is complicated, and precautions to mitigate risk of viral transmission inevitably slow care down. 

Much of the press around this study is that telehealth is receding quickly. As a trend in an extraordinary time when there was no alternative, as practices reopen a shift back to the office is to be expected, and often there is no substitute for in-person exams and procedures. Still, there are elements of long-term uncertainty on the future of practice telehealth. Both CMS and payers announced that payments for telehealth (audio/visual and telephone only) would remain in place only for the duration of the pandemic. What are their long term plans? Providers are having difficulty getting paid or paid enough even in parity states. State Medicaid presents even more of an unwanted ‘discount’.  Telehealth also demands a commitment to (ultimately) a HIPAA-compliant platform, workflow/staff support, and input in the practice’s EMR/population health platform. STAT, HealthcareITNews

The American Telehealth Association (ATA), coming off their virtual annual meeting last week, sent a letter to Congress with 340 signatories supporting a permanent expansion of telehealth after the public health emergency (PHE) ends in four priority areas:

  • Remove location restrictions 
  • Maintain HHS authority to determine eligible practitioners who may furnish clinically appropriate telehealth services
  • Authorize Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) and Rural Health Clinics (RHC) to furnish telehealth services 
  • Make permanent the HHS Temporary Waiver Authority to respond to emergencies

Release and letter

The TeleDentists now in 14 states with Anthem

June 30, 2020 | by

Updating our May article about The TeleDentists expanding their coverage via Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS), our initial information was that Anthem was offering teledentistry in only nine states. The current total since May is actually 14 states and covers by state and plan:

  • CA – Anthem Blue Cross
  • CO, CT, GA, IN, KY, ME, MO, NH, NV, OH, VA, WI – Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
  • NY – Empire BlueCross BlueShield

Part of this Editor’s puzzlement is that each health plan issues releases for its plan by state, and when our original article was written, only nine states had issued releases. This is in addition to their agreement with Cigna in employer-sponsored plans announced in April [TTA 15 April]. Hat tip to FischTank PR’s Kate Caruso-Sharpe for the update on behalf of Anthem.

ATA’s annual conference now 22-26 June–and fully virtual; announces three awards and Fellows

June 12, 2020 | by

The American Telemedicine Association has reimagined their annual conference and gone fully virtual–including an exhibit hall and poster displays. This year’s theme is “Moving at the Speed of Innovation…. Accelerating Telehealth Adoption”–if it hasn’t accelerated enough during the COVID pandemic, there’s always consolidating the gains.

Perhaps due to the complete cancellation of HIMSS and the addition of Joe Kvedar, MD, incoming ATA President, this year’s ATA has a five-day menu of healthcare leaders and over 300 speakers in 100+ sessions. Here’s a sample from the keynotes:

  • Ken Abrams, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Deloitte Consulting
  • Rachel Dunscombe, CEO, NHS Digital Academy; Tektology
  • Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, Chair, AMA Board of Trustees
  • Thomas Goetz, Chief of Research, GoodRx
  • Jennifer Goldsack, Executive Director, Digital Medicine Society
  • Victoria Guyatt, Head of Ethnography, IPSOS
  • Joe Kvedar, MD, Professor, Harvard Medical School; Senior Advisor, Mass General Brigham (Partners HealthCare); Incoming President, the ATA
  • Ali Parsa, Founder and CEO, Babylon Health
  • Suchi Saria, Assoc. Professor, Machine Learning & Data Intensive Computing Group, Johns Hopkins University and Bayesian Health
  • Jennifer Schneider, MD, President, Livongo
  • Michelle Segar, Director, Univ. of Michigan Sport, Health and Activity Research & Policy Center
  • Jeroen Tas, Chief Innovation & Strategy Officer, Philips Healthcare

Registration is priced gently at $450. Full information, schedule, and registration here.

ATA 2020 Awards

The ATA Champion award this year is to the Veterans Health Administration, US Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has been a leader in telehealth and store-forward technologies since, well, 2002 or so. VA Video Connect last year had 1.3 million appointments. (Sadly, your Editor’s former company, Viterion, which pioneered with VA in a RPM platform, is not currently a telehealth/RPM vendor–VA’s sole vendor is Medtronic.)

The President’s Award for the Transformation of Healthcare Delivery went to The Children’s Health Virtual Care Program at Children’s Health in Dallas. They have pioneered telemedicine programs for children.

The ATA’s Woman of the Year is  Tania S. Malik, J.D., an entrepreneur and a lawyer focused on healthcare, and specifically, telehealth solutions that facilitate online patient-provider interactions for primary care, mental health treatment, and naturopathic and integrated medicine.

Six Fellows were also named to ATA’s College of Fellows. Release.

 

Telehealth and the response to COVID-19 in Australia, UK, and US: the paper

June 12, 2020 | by | 1 Comment

Published last week in the Journal of Internet Research (JMIR) is the study by Malcolm Fisk, PhD which TTA previewed last month on telehealth’s part in the two-week response, starting 12 March, in response to COVID-19 in Australia, UK, and the US. Malcolm Fisk, PhD, who our readers know as Senior Researcher at the De Montfort University in Leicester, led a group from Australia in comparing these three countries in including telehealth in their responses to the pandemic. It looks at how telehealth models were used, awareness of the role of telehealth in response, and how restrictions previously in place were dealt with. 

The study’s conclusions, briefly summarized:

  • Australia: immediately funded on 11 March with AUS $100 million (US $68 million) a “new Medicare service,” at no cost for patients, for telehealth consultations. Telehealth in Australia is well developed, particularly in rural areas, for health and social care needs. The added funding will aid in the rollout.
  • UK: at the same time, the UK was in a ‘containment’ phase with the PM’s admission that “many more families will lose loved ones before their time”. At that point, telehealth was not in the plans, but the Imperial College projections and recommendations on home quarantining and ‘social distancing’ severely affected the most vulnerable, older people. COVID wound up being quite a jolt to the NHS since telehealth is underdeveloped in most of the UK with the exception being Scotland. Clinicians to this point did not see a need, and many older people do not have access to smartphones, tablets, or the internet. Intents are good–NHSX and the Topol Report setting a framework for telehealth–but to this point telehealth rollout is limited.
  • US: 17 March could be called ‘Telehealth on Steroids’ Day, as CMS announced the ‘dramatic’ expansion of telehealth services via non HIPAA compliant platforms such as Skype and Facetime for Medicare, retroactive to 6 March. Telehealth mushroomed starting 11 March in hospitals first, reporting 15 and 20-fold increases in telehealth consults. Then CDC and the AARP got on board. The US has an uneven system, between differences in state parity reimbursement, Medicare concentrating on rural health, state Medicaid, private pay, and integrated hospital systems’ approaches. What holds telehealth back are providers and areas in the US that simply do not have the internet connectivity that telehealth consults demand.

Good reading. Telehealth in the Context of COVID-19: Changing Perspectives in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States Hat tip to Dr. Fisk for sending it our way!

Optum buys naviHealth for reported $1 billion; Amwell raises $194 million in Series C

May 23, 2020 | by

In non-COVID-19 news, Optum has confirmed to industry press that they have acquired post-acute management company naviHealth. Becker’s HealthIT cites sources that the purchase price is in the vicinity of $1 billion. Continuing their PAC-MAN path, this pharmacy benefit, population health, and care services wing of UnitedHealth Group in the past six months finalized the purchase of DaVita Medical Group from renal treatment giant DaVita for over $4.3 bn and is reportedly closing on a full acquisition of virtual behavioral health provider AbleTo [TTA 29 Apr] for a less stunning $470 million.

naviHealth provides post-acute care clinical decision-making tools that manage pre and post-acute care as part of value-based care programs such as the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program with CMS. Their customer base includes health plans (4.5 million members within Medicare Advantage alone), over 140 hospitals, and post-acute care providers such as nursing homes, LTC facilities, rehabilitation, and home health. The company will retain current management and staff, and operate as a stand-alone company within OptumHealth. It’s a well-paid exit for Cardinal Health and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice. Also MedCityNews

Amwell raises $194 million in a second Series C. The former American Well did not need telehealth to receive a gratifying boost from its investors Allianz X and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. This follows on a February $60 million venture round from Chetrit Ventures (BostInno). Amwell has raised $711 million in nine funding rounds (Crunchbase). Their main business has been with payers, health systems, and employers. In April, they added a branded program, Amwell Private Practice, for practices under 100 providers for these mostly shuttered offices to reach their patients at home and to continue care. Release, Mobihealthnews.

Founder of Call9 springing back with Curve Health for nursing home telemedicine

May 15, 2020 | by

Tim Peck MD, founder of Call9, which provided in-facility emergency care staff with telehealth capability for nursing homes, announced a new venture also targeted to nursing home/skilled nursing home (SNF) and rehabilitative health. Curve Health will provide telemedicine and health information exchange technology to SNFs and physician groups. Physicians calling on SNF patients will be able to access patient information before a telemedicine visit. According to Dr. Peck, Curve Health’s telehealth and HIE software are built on that of Call9’s. POLITICO Morning e-Health.

Call9 closed operations last July after four years and $34 million in investment. It achieved some success in New York state, covering 3,700 beds and a total of 11,000 patients treated. While they experienced measurable success–in a 200-bed SNF, they achieved a 50 percent reduction in ER admissions and a savings of $8M per year–made inroads with major payers like Anthem and Healthfirst plus expanded into community telemedicine, it ran into a funding wall all too common with this sector. While the book of business was decent and they had gone through two well-funded rounds, Call9 could not move easily into a Series C. Value-based care is a great buzzword and beloved by CMS, but it is a long payout curve, too long for many investors. More discussion on this is in our article 26 June 2019. 

It is a shame as New York has been the epicenter of COVID-19 nursing home fatalities, due to a foolish (and this Editor is understating) state mandate of returning recovering patients right back to their nursing homes, which could not provide the level of care or isolate them. These patients often worsened, but also infected other patients and staff. Perhaps this could have been mitigated by Call9 or similar–but likely not.

Sadly, there’s a spotlight on nursing homes, rehabs, and LTC because of this pandemic. We look forward to more news from Dr. Peck and Curve Health in this specialized and underserved area of telehealth.