Studies Show How Telehealth Can Increase Equitable Access to Care Center for Connected Health Policy May 24, 2022 Focus on the relationship between telehealth and disparities in access to care continues to result in new research examining pandemic era data and the use of telehealth among disadvantaged populations. While policymakers and studies often try to put findings into two groups, whether telehealth increases or decreases inequities, recent research shows that the study framework used and considerations made may impact outcomes more so than telehealth itself. For instance, this month a new study published in Health Affairs found that as a result of emergency federal telemedicine coverage expansions access increased for all Medicare populations, including those in the most disadvantaged areas. The study was framed to examine the impact of expanded telehealth coverage policies on different populations, rather than looking at access generally where inequities have unfortunately always existed. Comparing pre-COVID temporary waiver data with post-waiver implementation data, the authors discovered that the highest odds of utilization were among those in disadvantaged and metropolitan areas. As reported in a Managed Healthcare Executive article on the study, the Johns Hopkins researchers concluded that the results suggest that increased Medicare telemedicine coverage policies improve access to underserved populations without worsening disparities. An additional study just published in Telemedicine Journal and e-Health and covered in a healthleaders article showed that a virtual care program at Penn Medicine is reducing barriers to access specifically for Black patients and eliminating historic disparities. The authors looked at approximately one million appointments per year in both 2019 and 2020 for Philadelphia area patients and found that Black patients used telehealth more than non-Black patients and that appointment completion gaps between Black and non-Black patients closed. Also recently released, the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) produced a white paper titled The Future of Telehealth Roundtable: The Potential Impact of Emerging Technologies on Health Equity, which focuses on how to ensure telehealth increases equitable access to care. Following up on its previous pandemic telehealth work, in late 2021 NCQA pulled together a multidisciplinary panel of equity and technology experts for a discussion on equitable access and virtual health care delivery. Reviewing hypothetical case studies and responding to various questions, participants highlighted potential challenges and identified three primary ways to ensure equitable access in telehealth delivery: Tailoring Telehealth Use and Access to Individual Preferences and Needs Addressing Regulatory, Policy and Infrastructure Barriers to Fair Telehealth Access Leveraging Telehealth and Digital Technologies to Promote Equitable Care Delivery The white paper suggests the need to prioritize language and cultural humility, address digital literacy, and optimize telehealth for people with disabilities. In addition, in terms of barriers, the authors stress the need to address broadband infrastructure and licensure limitations, while also updating laws and regulations that restrict telehealth use, including payment policies. Another Health Affairs article published this month, Policy Considerations to Ensure Telemedicine Equity, also looked at various factors that must be taken into account to allow telehealth to increase equitable access to care. The author clarifies that equity is a matter beyond telehealth and is related to patient-level barriers that include family, community, and general health care delivery level factors, such as issues related to the digital divide. In addition, the article cautions against policies focusing on increased utilization concerns, stating that increased use may mean that patients are finally attaining the care they need, in addition to the fact that increased access may reduce overall health care costs. Therefore, policies seeking to reduce reimbursement or limit audio-only modalities to address utilization and cost concerns may instead primarily reduce clinicians’ willingness to offer telehealth and modalities that mitigate access barriers for historically excluded groups. The article also highlights how varying payer policies, such as those that allow reimbursement for telehealth visits with new patients versus those that do not, creates inequities, and that differing medical licensing and/or prescribing regulations by state can create inequitable access issues on top of differing coverage policies. These policy considerations are key to ensuring telemedicine mitigates inequities rather than exacerbates them. While the pandemic generally has highlighted and exacerbated existing inequities, it has also provided the information necessary to show telehealth’s ability to address disparities and increase equitable access to care. It is important that policymakers take such findings and opportunities from studies on telehealth equity into account when looking to potentially make pandemic policies permanent in order to properly preserve telehealth’s positive impacts. It is also important that the framework used in the study be placed in context to help explain why some research speaks to telehealth disparities, or health care disparities, versus how telehealth is decreasing health care disparities. As shown in the aforementioned studies and articles, the difference in framing showcases that telehealth in and of itself does not create or exacerbate disparities, rather it is a tool that can be utilized to decrease disparities in access to care. The tool has to be allowed to be effective, however, and that is where the role of public policy comes in. Policies must support broadband and telehealth infrastructure and promote the use of technology to deliver care equal to the delivery of in-person care. For instance, Medicaid policies that limit when telehealth can be used and/or certain allowable modalities can create inequities in comparison to more expansive commercial policies that guarantee better telehealth access to non-Medicaid patients. Therefore, policymakers must recognize that regulatory restrictions around telehealth cannot prevent already existing general access disparities, rather it is often the regulatory restrictions around telehealth that lead to exacerbating disparities. It becomes vital that research be put into context so that subsequent policies are implemented that allow telehealth to reach its full potential to reduce disparities. For full article: https://mailchi.mp/cchpca/the-latest-telehealth-research-studies-show-how-telehealth-can-increase-equitable-access-to-care < Previous News Next News >

Effects on Patient Access to Telehealth as Some State Emergencies End Center for Connected Health Policy July 2021 With state of emergency declarations expiring or being lifted in states, there is growing concern patients are being left with reduced access if no permanent telehealth policy changes have been enacted. With state of emergency declarations expiring or being lifted in states, there is growing concern patients are being left with reduced access if no permanent telehealth policy changes have been enacted. According to the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), nearly 20 states no longer are under emergency orders, with many soon to follow. Many states attached telehealth flexibilities to the federal public health emergency (PHE) while others made them contingent on state emergency declarations. Some states have successfully passed legislation to extend certain telehealth flexibilities in advance of state of emergency expirations, such as Connecticut and Delaware. The federal government Emergency Preparedness and Response for Home and Community Based (HCBS) 1915(c) Waivers were often originally tied to state emergencies, but appear to now extend 6 months after the federal PHE ends. Alaska is one of the states no longer under a state of emergency. During the pandemic a local outlet reported thousands of patients were being referred to out-of-state providers, especially in Washington, via telehealth for a variety of reasons including lack of specialty care and long wait times. Once the emergency licensing waivers expired, however, Seattle hospitals were sent rushing to reschedule Alaska patients and resume the more stringent process of becoming licensed in Alaska. According to recent local reports, Florida’s emergency expiration also took away audio-only and the ability to use telehealth to prescribe controlled substances and recertify medical cannabis patients. The Florida Medical Association told the local news outlet they will continue the push to make telehealth changes permanent in the next state legislative session, especially those requiring insurer reimbursement and payment parity, without which they say telehealth will simply no longer be made available to patients. For more information on the status of the emergency orders in each state visit the NASHP website - https://www.nashp.org/governors-prioritize-health-for-all/. < Previous News Next News >

Making Telemedicine Feasible for Everyone – Especially Those With Physical Challenges Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Southwest Telehealth Resource Center August 2021 In the context of healthcare, nondiscrimination on the basis of disability means equal access to available health care services, whether those services are provided in-person or via telehealth. Telemedicine has for years been touted as providing access to healthcare for everyone, anywhere, anytime and it has been quite successful in doing so in many respects but disparities still exist among a number of patient populations. In particular, those who traditionally have challenges accessing healthcare due to physical challenges often experience similar or even greater challenges with telemedicine. Think about for a minute. Telemedicine is predominantly provided using audio and/or video-based telecommunications technologies. This fundamental fact of how telemedicine visits occur can actually exacerbate digital disparities. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an individual with a disability is defined as: 1. a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major activities; or 2. a person who has a history or record of such an impairment; or 3. a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment Under Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any services, programs, or activities of the covered entity (e.g., healthcare providers). In the context of healthcare, nondiscrimination on the basis of disability means equal access to available health care services, whether those services are provided in-person or via telehealth. Some basic facts highlight the problem. About 15% of American adults (37.5 million) over 18 report some trouble hearing, 2 to 3 per 1,000 US children are born with detectable hearing loss in one or both ears and overall 1 in 8 people (13%) 12 years or older has hearing loss in both ears. Interestingly, non-Hispanic white adults are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to have hearing loss and non-Hispanic black adults have the lowest prevalence among adults aged 20-69. Rates increase with age. The statistics for vision impairments are equally high. About 12 million people over 40 years have a vision impairment, with 1 million who are blind and 6.8% of children younger than 18 have a diagnosed eye and vision condition. The annual economic impact of major vision problems for those over 40 is over $145 billion! For blindness, access to healthcare is especially critical as 90% of blindness caused by diabetes is preventable and early detection and treatment of conditions such as diabetic retinopathy is efficacious and cost effective. So what can we do in the telemedicine community to help ameliorate these disparities? The National Consortium of Telehealth Resource Centers has developed a fact sheet to help providers. Some of the key recommendations are actually fairly easy to carry out. Inventory products, services, and factors required to provide effective telehealth services to patients and ensure they meet basic accessibility requirements for people with disabilities. Consider compatibility of assistive technology (e.g., alternative keyboards) and whether they can work effectively with your chosen telehealth modality. Learn about and incorporate accessibility features (e.g., close-captioning) of software programs you use. Be sure to include the patient’s caregiver, family member, or home health aide during telehealth visits. Increase your knowledge and awareness on cultural competency and linguistic sensitivity. The easiest thing to do ask patients with disabilities about their accessibility requirements! Some additional aids to consider may take a little more effort but are worth it. For those with hearing loss consider: qualified sign language interpreter, qualified cued-speech interpreter, qualified tactile interpreter, real-time captioning or communication access real-time translation (CART), video remote interpreting (VRI), use written materials, ensure the patient has access to headphones or a headset, confirm participants are wearing their hearing aids or amplification device, and use video whenever possible to allow lip reading and provide visual clues like gestures. For those with vision loss consider: a qualified reader, information in large print, Braille, or electronically for use with a computer screen-reading program, have an audio recording of printed information, be aware of your background - there needs to be contrast between you and your background and blurring the background may make it challenging for the patient, ensure lighting is bright enough for patients to clearly see your face, use simplified and enlarged text, ensure patients have a computer-screen reading program for transmission of electronic information and try providing an audio recording of printed information provided during the appointment. Additional ideas and tips can be found on the Health & Human Services (HHS) website There is also good news in terms of funding. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced that under the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP), also called “iCanConnect,” may provide up to $10 million annually from the interstate telecommunications relay service fund (TRS Fund) to support local programs that distribute equipment to eligible low-income individuals who are deafblind to access telecommunications service, Internet access service, and advanced communications services. This is clearly a boon for telemedicine applications. The announcement includes a state-by-state list of the initial allocations for the 56 covered jurisdictions. Hearing and vision loss are just two common challenges deal with. Other physical, mental and behavioral challenges are very common as well, and many of the tips above can be adapted to these patients as well, especially simply reaching out and asking them what their needs are and how you can help meet them as well as involving the patient’s caregiver, family member, or home health aide during telehealth visits. Basically telemedicine must be available to any patient and programs should make it a priority to develop strategies and tools to empower all patients no matter what their resources and capabilities to access safe, effective and efficient care. < Previous News Next News >

Audio-Only Telemedicine In Primary Care: Embraced In The NHS, Second Rate In The US Rebecca Fisher, Urmimala Sarkar, Julia Adler-Milstein December 5, 2022 Use of telemedicine in primary care soared in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and remains well above pre-pandemic levels. In the US, a major enabler of this shift is equal reimbursement across video, audio, and in-person visits. Policy makers must now choose whether to extend these COVID-19-era telemedicine policies. A key decision is whether audio-only telemedicine should be covered and if so, whether it should retain parity with video-based telemedicine. The dominance of video over audio in the US suggests that an appropriate policy strategy would be to not reimburse for audio-only telemedicine or reimburse at markedly lower levels. However, US policy makers would be wise to look internationally first—where experience suggests that audio-only can be an effective and more equitable means of delivering primary care. In the National Health Service (NHS) in England, almost one in three consultations in general practice is audio-only; a figure that has been stable since October 2021. This represents a major rise; pre-pandemic around 10 percent of consults were by phone. Despite efforts from UK policy makers such as fast-tracking funding for online consultation tools, the number of video consults remains stubbornly low, at just 0.4 percent of appointments. This is despite the fact that most NHS primary care practices are video-equipped, and the US and UK populations do not differ significantly in their digital literacy. What Explains The Higher Levels Of Audio-Only Telemedicine In The UK Versus US? There is no evidence that directly answers this important question. We therefore leverage circumstantial considerations to develop three possible explanations. National Policy Given the active efforts of policy makers at the start of the pandemic to expand availability of telemedicine, an initial explanation is that the countries implemented different policies regarding telemedicine provision—with the US pursuing policies that favored video while the UK pursued policies that favored audio. However, we are not aware of any such policy differences. In both countries, policy makers acted swiftly to make it easier for providers to consult using either modality. National guidance issued to practices in England encouraged use of phone and video encounters “tailored to the person, the circumstance and their needs,” but there was no directive to prioritize audio-only above video consulting. In the US, emergency legislation removed barriers to telemedicine consulting, including giving parity of reimbursement across audio and video encounters (theoretically an incentive to drive up audio-only rates). Both countries reduced regulatory barriers to video consultation, allowing providers to use non-medical video call applications such as Skype and Facetime. But neither country mandated—or strongly incentivized—provision of one telemedicine modality over the other. Path Dependence A second explanation is one of path dependence. The idea that faced with the need to act fast and little central planning or coordination, health care delivery organizations disproportionately scaled-up the form of telemedicine that made sense given prior circumstances before the pandemic. In the NHS, the use of audio-only for triage and traditional encounters in general practice was common pre-pandemic. In 2019, 10 percent of encounters in English general practice were by phone, compared to fewer than 1 percent across both telemedicine modalities in the US. The public was also used to receiving health advice by phone—the NHS 111 service is a free phoneline to help people in England access non-emergency medical advice and to link them to local NHS services. Thus, when the pandemic hit, it was easier to act quickly to scale the more familiar modality of audio. In contrast, the US did very little of either modality pre-pandemic, and in an effort to more closely replicate face-to-face care at the start of the pandemic when in-person care was not an option, US practices chose to ramp up video-based telemedicine. Provider Perceptions Of Quality While path dependence emphasizes the concept of choice driven by ease, a third potential explanation is that, instead of prior familiarity driving decisions about modality offerings, these decisions were driven by different perceptions of the strengths and limitations of each modality. In the UK, analysis of why general practitioners hadn’t used video consultations found that despite improvements in functionality and reliability of video consultation tools, practitioners viewed video encounters as logistically more challenging and more cognitively demanding than either face-to-face or telephone consulting. Physicians felt that many presenting problems could be sorted safely by telephone, with in-person assessment required for the remainder. Where problems required visual assessment, physicians preferred a combination of photograph plus telephone consultation (SMS technology is widely embedded in general practice [GP] electronic health records). Consensus from UK physicians seems to be that video provides little benefit over audio-only. Differential uptake of video over audio-consulting suggests that US physicians feel differently; surveys of US physicians have highlighted concerns about the diagnostic accuracy of telephone visits, and their suitability for new patients. The acceptability of different telemedicine modalities to patients is another dimension of quality that could have driven what health care delivery organizations offered. Evidence from the UK suggests that telephone appointments are a popular appointment modality in general practice. Indeed, analysis of 7.5 million patient-initiated requests for care across 146 primary care providers found that telephone consultation was the most popular patient preference, requested by 55 percent of people seeking care, with fewer than 1 percent of requests seeking a video consult. In the US, one trial reports similar patient satisfaction with audio and video consults, but it is possible that US physicians felt that patients expected video consultations and made efforts to oblige. Based on circumstantial evidence, we suspect that path dependence and perceptions of quality worked together to push the countries in different directions. While more conclusive evidence is needed, explanation three raises the more critical question of how to move from perceptions of quality differences to robust evidence that can inform choice of modality. What Is Currently Known About Which Modality Is Better From A Quality Perspective? The clearest evidence on differences between modalities is about access, where audio-only has clear advantages over video consults in promoting equity. People with the greatest need for health care may be least enabled to access it digitally—termed the “digital inverse care law.” In both the US and the UK, digital exclusion is socially patterned. Older people, those in lower-income groups, people with disabilities, or who do not have English as a first language are more likely to be digitally excluded. In the telemedicine context, video visits require digital literacy and access to technology and broadband/data that are not ubiquitous. On the health system side, providing video visits requires health centers and staff to overcome barriers including cost, training, and technology. These barriers may be more likely to occur in safety-net settings. In the US, video visits are more common in people earning above $100,000, White people, younger people, and people with private health insurance. In contrast, users of audio-only telemedicine are more likely to be Black people, older adults, and on Medicaid. With telephony already embedded in health centers and 97 percent of Americans owning cell phones, audio-only telemedicine represents an important means of accessing care for underserved populations. Beyond equitable access, we lack evidence on differences in other dimensions of quality between the two consultation modes, either overall or in specific clinical scenarios. Unfortunately, there is a major obstacle to such evidence generation: In the US, we do not routinely capture the specific telemedicine modality in use and therefore cannot readily compare audio-only to video encounters. Ruth Hailu and colleagues describe the range of interventions—including simplifying coding and adapting electronic health records—required to generate data that would support comparative analysis. However, even with such data available, the choice of modality is non-random, and individuals are likely to receive a blended mix of consultation types during episodes of care. Disentangling the impact of each encounter modality on a range of clinical and patient-reported outcomes would be a substantial research undertaking. Large, diverse population observational studies may be required, alongside a range of qualitative studies of patient and physician experience. Some of this evidence will take years to gather, and decisions on extending coverage beyond the pandemic emergency will likely be required before a full picture is clear. Neither health system can claim an “evidence-based” strategy—and it likely that neither the US nor the NHS has it right yet. So Where Does This Leave Policy Makers? In the UK, there is no urgent policy decision to be made around reimbursement, since all forms of telemedicine are covered by the capitated payment system for general practice. Instead, debate has focused on whether access to in-person appointments is now too limited. This is framed by decreasing public satisfaction with access to general practice, in the context of ongoing and severe shortages of primary care physicians. Despite nudges from policy makers, the pandemic has barely shifted the number of video consultations in general practice, and use of telephone consulting has expanded instead. Ongoing studies will monitor outcomes of this change and may require expansion to help the NHS identify an optimal blend of consulting modes. With UK general practitioners unconvinced of quality benefits of video consultations, it is likely that compelling evidence of their benefit would be required for use to increase. US policy makers face more difficult choices about ongoing reimbursement for audio-only telemedicine. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 extends certain telehealth coverages for 151 days after the official end of the federal public health emergency, thus going some way to preventing a “telehealth cliff.” But with the World Health Organization recently discussing for the first time the possibility of ending their emergency declaration on COVID-19, decisions about funding for audio-only and/or video will need to be made relatively soon. In the absence of robust evidence, decisions are likely to hinge on perceptions of the quality of different consultation modes. Arguments against payment parity between audio-only and video telehealth are likely to focus on early perceptions that audio is a lower-quality modality or prone to overuse. These arguments and their rebuttals have been clearly described already. However, given the clear evidence of the meaningful benefits for reaching underserved people, the US should extend coverage of audio-only telemedicine for a minimum of five years. During this time, perceptions of quality can be informed by empirical evidence, such that we can either phase out audio-only in an equitable way or give providers more flexibility to combine use of modalities. Even with reimbursement parity, policy makers will need to invest in complementary enablers of equitable telemedicine access through state-level action. As Elaine Khoong writes, avoiding a two-tier system where video encounters are disproportionately available to the wealthy requires policy makers to expand video-visit capacity in the safety net, alongside community-based strategies to improve digital literacy. Given that telehealth does not necessitate the same geographical constraints as in-person care—for example, with respect to physician licensing or online prescribing—amending policies to streamline provision across states is also vital. A Role For Payment Reform? The past two years have shown that telephone and video consultation can be combined to deliver high-quality and efficient care. Going forward, patients are likely to receive a blended mix of appointments across modalities, tailored to clinical need and individual circumstance. In the NHS, capitated payments give clinicians and managers the flexibility to offer a mix of appointment modalities, based on the clinical situation without the need to consider differential reimbursement or administrative burden. In fee-for-service models, differentiating payment levels across telemedicine modalities is likely to increase bureaucracy and risks decreasing efficiency and quality. In the longer run, experience from both systems suggests that we should move away from modality-based reimbursement. In recent testimony to the US Senate’s Committee on Finance, Robert Berenson suggested that fee-for-service is a particularly flawed payment model for telemedicine, and that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should consider paying for telehealth services in a similar model to the UK: via monthly capitated payments for primary care physicians as part of a hybrid payment model. Capitated payment systems enable physicians to use the encounter modality considered most appropriate for the situation without worrying about how they will be paid (or the patient billed). Berenson’s proposal would allow physicians and patients to tailor the type of telemedicine encounter more precisely to individual patient need and might reduce bureaucracy associated with billing, in turn increasing efficiency. As evidence on the benefits and risks of each modality emerges, such a payment model also allows rapid translation of evidence into practice. Authors’ Note Professor Sarkar holds current research funding from the National Cancer Institute, California Healthcare Foundation, the Food and Drug Administration, HopeLab, and the Commonwealth Fund. She has received prior grant funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She received gift funding from The Doctors Company Foundation. She holds contract funding from AppliedVR, InquisitHealth, Somnology, and RecoverX. Professor Sarkar serves as a scientific/expert adviser for nonprofit organizations HealthTech 4 Medicaid (volunteer) and for HopeLab (volunteer). She is a member of the American Medical Association’s Equity and Innovation Advisory Group (honoraria). She is an adviser for Waymark (shares) and for Ceteri Capital I GP, LLC (shares). She has been a clinical adviser for Omada Health (honoraria), and an advisory board member for Doximity (honoraria). See original article: https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/audio-only-telemedicine-primary-care-embraced-nhs-second-rate-us#.Y45MpkrZubQ.twitter < Previous News Next News >

Memorial Hermann to provide school-based pediatric telehealth Naomi Diaz October 18, 2022 Houston-based Children's Memorial Hermann has partnered with telehealth company Hazel Health to provide outpatient pediatric care to K-12 students in Houston. Under the partnership, schools that have agreements with Hazel will be able to offer their students access to health services via virtual telehealth sessions, according to an Oct. 17 press release. Children's Memorial Hermann pediatricians or specialists will connect with the students through the program for follow-up or long-term care management. The aim of the partnership is to increase access to pediatric care in schools across 12 counties in southeast Texas. See original article: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/telehealth/memorial-hermann-to-provide-school-based-pediatric-telehealth.html < Previous News Next News >

NCQA Report: 3 Strategies to Close Telehealth Access Gaps Mark Melchionna May 16, 2022 The National Committee for Quality Assurance released a telehealth report that highlighted care disparities and strategies for improvement. May 16, 2022 - Prioritizing individual preferences and patient needs, breaking down regulatory barriers, and leveraging technology in an equitable manner can go a long way toward addressing the growing disparities in telehealth use, according to a white paper released by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). The white paper, titled The Future of Telehealth Roundtable, discusses ways to close gaps in telehealth use and access. The NCQA is a nonprofit organization that focuses on improving the quality of care and certifying various healthcare groups. Dig Deeper Pressure on Congress to Solidify Telehealth Access Builds GOP, Independent Senators Co-Sponsor Medicare Telehealth Access Bill Lawmakers Ask Congress to Create a Rural Telehealth Access Task Force As virtual care grows amid the COVID-19 pandemic, The Future of Telehealth Roundtable highlighted various areas that could be enhanced. The white paper derives from an October 2021 conference consisting of telehealth and technology experts from several prominent healthcare organizations, including MedStar Health. The experts noted that despite the expected benefits associated with telehealth, such as convenience and lower costs, disparities still exist within specific communities. According to the white paper, three strategies could help close care gaps as telehealth is further implemented. The first is creating telehealth services that cater to personal patient preferences and needs, as some individuals may face struggles due to their primary language and socioeconomic status. The second is addressing regulatory barriers to access and changing regulations to allow expanded clinician eligibility for licensure. The final strategy is ensuring that digital technology can be leveraged efficiently. For example, considering patient access levels to technology is critical because it determines how patients can be reached and how to best care for them. “Even prior to the pandemic, a change in healthcare delivery was on the horizon with ever-evolving advancements in technology,” said NCQA President Margaret E. O’Kane, in an accompanying press release. “As virtually based care expands, unique patient needs and preferences must be identified and prioritized so that telehealth can help us close the gaps in healthcare and not widen existing disparities.” The Future of Telehealth Roundtable also emphasized the continuing popularity of telehealth and that it will hold a place in the new normal. But as the implementation process continues with new technology, avoiding the digital divide is necessary to eliminate disparities. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, various studies have emphasized pinpointing the potential barriers to telehealth access. One study published in February revealed that Black patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) prefer recording and sharing blood pressure (BP) via a text-based program rather than an online patient portal. This is likely because the patient portal has higher technical requirements than text-based communication. Further, research published last November shows that patients with limited English proficiency were less likely to use video when accessing virtual services during the pandemic than adults who could speak English comfortably. For full article: https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/ncqa-report-3-strategies-to-close-telehealth-access-gaps < Previous News Next News >

Building Lasting Tele-Behavioral Health Programs to Address Patient Needs Kat Jercich, Healthcare IT News. August 2021 In a HIMSS21 Global Conference Digital session, two experts discuss what it's taken for the University of Rochester to spin up a virtual behavioral health program over the past nine years. Telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed many patients – especially those in under-resourced areas – unprecedented access to behavioral healthcare. But as Michael Hasselberg, senior director of digital health at the University of Rochester, discussed with Cleveland Clinic Director of Design and Best Practices Julie Rish during a HIMSS21 Global Conference Digital session, such programs have required being nimble and adaptable in the face of changing needs. Hasselberg outlined the results of a tele-behavioral health model in effect at the University of Rochester, explaining that it grew from a pilot program aimed at primary care doctors to a full-scale initiative in nearly a decade. But the pandemic, he says, ramped up demand – and the supply had to change in response. "Like every health system in the entire country, overnight you had to flip the switch on, and essentially totally pivot to telemedicine," he said. Having the infrastructure and years of experience allowed the team to shift within about a week to providing behavioral health services nearly entirely virtually. Even as vaccines have become more readily available, Hasselberg estimates that about 60% of the team's ambulatory services are being provided via telemedicine. Interestingly, considering reports from other parts of the country, Hasselberg said the team has not encountered patient difficulties with broadband access, even in rural areas – thanks in part to state government efforts to ensure connectivity throughout the region. But one challenge, he said, has been gaining community trust and support. "Learning to build those community partnerships, identify how the stakeholders are, doing focus groups … has allowed us to be successful," he said. For other organizations looking to replicate the university's success, he said, start by reaching out to providers already in place. "Build that partnership there. Find out where their struggles may be, where the gaps may be, how you can join forces to fill those gaps and truly partner," he advised. He also suggests approaching the programs as iterative – being agile and flexible, and not allowing perfect to be the enemy of good. "Just get something out there: See what works and what doesn't work, and continue to build off of that," he said. It's also vital to remember that not every service can be done via telehealth, he said. Having a support network to assist patients with technology is enormously helpful. Rish noted that it's not just about access alone. It's also about comfort and about trust. "Having somebody from your team who can get to the community, who can be onsite – that's really important," said Hasselberg. Hasselberg said it's been useful to examine who can most benefit from telehealth because of transportation hurdles or other barriers to in-person care. "Finding parking at an academic medical center is not an easy thing to do!" he laughed. By merging that information with electronic health record data, he said, the team can get specific about how best to target services. As far as care delivery predictions, Hasselberg said he saw telemedicine as the "tip of the iceberg." "I think the future of behavioral health will be an a la carte array of options," he said. < Previous News Next News >

Amazon Launches Messaging-Based Virtual Care Service Anuja Vaidya November 15, 2022 Called Amazon Clinic, the new service enables healthcare consumers to connect with clinicians via a message-based portal and receive care for common medical conditions like acne and UTIs. A few months after announcing plans to shutter its telehealth business, Amazon has launched a new virtual care clinic. Called Amazon Clinic, the message-based service is currently available in 32 states. It offers virtual care for more than 20 common medical conditions, including acne, cold sores, seasonal allergies, and urinary tract infections. The service also provides access to birth control services. Healthcare consumers can choose to receive care from a network of telehealth providers, including SteadyMD and Health Tap. After selecting a provider, the consumer completes an intake questionnaire. They are then connected with a clinician via a message-based portal. Once the consultation is over, the clinician sends a treatment plan to the patient through the portal. Clinicians can also send needed prescriptions to a preferred pharmacy or Amazon's online pharmacy. The service further allows users to exchange messages with the selected clinician for up to two weeks after the initial consultation. READ MORE: National Telehealth Use Appears to be Stabilizing "We believe that improving both the occasional and ongoing engagement experience is necessary to making care dramatically better," Nworah Ayogu, MD, chief medical officer and general manager at Amazon Clinic, wrote in a company blog post. "We also believe that customers should have the agency to choose what works best for them. Amazon Clinic is just one of the ways we're working to empower people to take control of their health by providing access to convenient, affordable care in partnership with trusted providers." Amazon Clinic costs will vary by provider. Prices will be disclosed upfront, and according to the 'frequently asked questions' section of the blog post, the prices are "equivalent or less than the average copay." The service does not yet accept health insurance, but consumers can use flexible spending and health savings accounts to make payments. They can also use their insurance to pay for medications. Amazon plans to expand the virtual care clinic to additional states in the coming months. The news comes on the heels of the technology giant announcing that it will close its Amazon Care business by the end of the year. Amazon Care included both telehealth and in-person care and was positioned as an employer-focused service. Initially open to only Amazon employees in the Seattle area, the company began offering the service to other businesses in 2021 and even signed deals to extend it to Silicon Labs, TrueBlue, and Whole Foods Market employees earlier this year. But leaders decided to shut down Amazon Care because it was "not a complete enough offering for the large enterprise customers we have been targeting, and wasn’t going to work long-term," Amazon Health Services Senior Vice President Neil Lindsay said in an internal company memo. READ MORE: Telehealth Patient Satisfaction On Par with In-Person Care During Pandemic Unlike Amazon Care, it appears that Amazon Clinic will operate as a connector, enabling consumers to gain access to telehealth provided by established virtual care companies. "By abandoning Amazon Care in favor of Amazon Clinic, Amazon is doubling down on what they are good at — going directly to the consumer," said Allison Oakes, PhD, director of research at market research firm Trilliant Health, in an email. "Capitalizing on what they are good at, it seems like Amazon will create a marketplace for providers and patients to connect, rather than employing their own network of doctors. This will allow them to keep their costs low and scale quickly. It will be interesting to learn more about the economics of a marketplace model, which traditionally are based upon allocating revenue between the provider of the good or service and the operator of the marketplace. Given long-standing prohibitions against fee-splitting, it will be interesting to understand Amazon's economic upside." Further, because of the current cash-only payment model, Amazon Clinic may only attract relatively young and healthy patients, which is unlikely to improve population health, Oakes added. The shuttering of Amazon Care and launch of Amazon Clinic follow the company's purchase of One Medical. This may point to Amazon's growing focus on a hybrid care strategy overall. "It is interesting that Amazon Clinic is doubling down on virtual-only care, despite the fact that telehealth visits have declined by 37 percent from Q2 2020 to Q1 2022," Oakes said. "They may see Amazon Clinic as the 'digital front door' for One Medical patient acquisition." READ MORE: Patients Prefer Telehealth for Primary Care, Mental Health Needs Today's announcement appears to bolster that idea, with Ayogu noting in the blog post that if healthcare consumers are seeking virtual care for a condition that may be better treated in person, the service will let them know before they are connected to a telehealth provider. "Virtual care isn't right for every problem," he wrote. Editor's note: The article was updated at 2:50 om ET with comments from Trilliant Health's Dr. Allison Oakes. See original article: https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/amazon-launches-messaging-based-virtual-care-service < Previous News Next News >

How Americans Feel About Telehealth: One Year Later Sykes.com April 21, 2021 In March 2020 and 2021 we polled 2,000 adults to discover their perspectives on and experience with telehealth — how have opinions changed one year into the COVID-19 pandemic? Pre-pandemic, telehealth was much more of a novelty than a necessity in the healthcare industry. The idea of contacting your doctor remotely for care was promising, but there were major hurdles — obstacles that would require time, effort, and ingenuity to overcome. Then, COVID-19 created a need for safe, distant medical care and advice. And necessity, like always, is the mother of invention (or in this case, adoption). Suddenly, millions of patients who were once walk-ins became logins, and soon, all that was necessary to get a quality checkup was a stable Wi-Fi connection. SYKES’ March 2020 telehealth survey revealed new insights on what Americans thought about the rise of virtual visits to the doctor and the concept of telehealth in general. At that point, telehealth was still a radical idea, and phrases like “new normal” had yet to overstay their welcome. Research outlined in the SYKES Fall 2020 telehealth apps report made it clear that all kinds of new users had already begun scheduling consultations in cyberspace due to COVID-19. But now, with vaccines being administered all over the world, will this mean a decline in socially distanced telehealth services too? Or will patients still want access to virtual doctor visits even after distance is no longer a factor? To find out, we asked 2,000 Americans in March 2021 how their opinions on telehealth have changed over the past year, what they’ve experienced, and what they think should stick around even after vaccines are widely available. For full story: https://www.sykes.com/resources/reports/how-americans-feel-about-telehealth-now/ < Previous News Next News >

The value of telehealth and the move to digitally enabled care — 3 insights Becker's Hospital Review In Collaboration with American Medical Association Nov. 1, 2021 During the pandemic, healthcare organizations embraced telehealth to ensure they could provide access and high quality care to their patients. Now, nearly two years later, organizations are contemplating how best to move forward, including how to safeguard and optimize opportunities to move towards digitally enabled care. During the pandemic, healthcare organizations embraced telehealth to ensure they could provide access and high quality care to their patients. Now, nearly two years later, organizations are contemplating how best to move forward, including how to safeguard and optimize opportunities to move towards digitally enabled care. During Becker's 6th Annual Health IT + Revenue Cycle Virtual Conference, the American Medical Association sponsored a roundtable discussion on this topic. The AMA's Lori Prestesater, Vice President of Health Solutions, and Meg Barron, Vice President of Digital Health Innovations, talked with healthcare executives from around the country about their digital health successes and challenges. Three insights: 1. Providers want virtual care to continue as long as their key concerns are addressed. "Physicians are enthusiastic about digital health technologies," Ms. Barron said. "However, that enthusiasm is directly tied to a solution's ability to help them take better care of patients or reduce their administrative burdens." Four key concerns consistently expressed by physicians when evaluating digital solutions are whether a solution works and has an evidence base, how providers will be compensated, what liability and privacy issues exist, and how implementation and change management will occur. 2. One of the major advantages of telehealth is improved access. Access can be widely defined; virtual technology has made significant inroads in improving access in multiple ways: COVID-19 access. The department chair of a hospital in the Northeast noted that telehealth helped them provide quick access and treatment to patients during the pandemic. "It worked extremely well in this emergency situation," he said. "Patients would call in and report symptoms, and we could make decisions about their care. We provided pulse oximeters and followed up via telehealth." Specialty access. A CMO from a Midwestern health network — who is the father of a daughter with a chronic illness — shared his personal experience with specialty care from multiple systems. "I can't imagine how my daughter could receive specialty care without telehealth. Care that was previously siloed can now be accessed nationally, if not internationally." Behavioral health access. A chief population health officer from a health system in the Midwest said telehealth access to mental health services was a big success. "Patients found the pandemic very rough, and many needed some behavioral health services, but they didn't necessarily want to try to see somebody because of the stigma associated with it," she said. "Being able to offer telebehavioral health services to our patients, and frankly, even to our employees, was a great success." 3. Challenges such as patient hesitancy, bandwidth issues and measurement of value remain. Although patients are generally positive about telehealth, some have found it difficult to onboard to telehealth platforms. One provider in the Northeast said younger patients love the ability to text and connect virtually, but elderly patients often prefer in-person visits for the human connection. Also, many healthcare organizations have faced connection issues. A West Coast CMO explained, "We have 24 hospitals, and many of them are in rural areas. We really struggled with bandwidth." Finally, measuring the value of these technologies remains a challenge. Ms. Prestesater pointed out that it can be a "many-year equation to evaluate the value for a chronically ill patient." AMA has a recently released Return on Health value framework that can help an organization quantify the comprehensive value of virtual care. Although some participants warned that virtual care may not be less expensive, it can be hard to quantify savings from things like avoiding emergency care. A Midwest hospital executive said, "Home-based care has led to a substantial reduction in visits to the emergency room and days in the hospital for us. The problem in the whole equation is it's hard to measure something that doesn't happen." < Previous News Next News >

Updated Version of CONNECT for Health Act Introduced in Congress Center for Connected Health Policy May 4, 2021 Last week an updated version of the CONNECT for Health Act was introduced in Congress. Last week an updated version of the CONNECT for Health Act was introduced in Congress. The bill, which was first introduced in 2016 but has been repurposed in this newest version to remove restrictions on telehealth for mental health, stroke care and home dialysis in certain circumstances. It also addresses several of the restrictions in Medicare, including geographic limitations, expanding originating sites to include the home, restrictions on federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and rural health clinics (RHCs) reimbursement and gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to waive other telehealth restrictions permanently. For more information, see the press release, or read the bill’s summary published by Senator Schatz office. Stay tuned for a deeper dive and further analysis from CCHP next week. Press Release: https://www.schatz.senate.gov/press-releases/schatz-wicker-lead-bipartisan-group-of-50-senators-in-reintroducing-legislation-to-expand-telehealth-access-make-permanent-telehealth-flexibilities-available-during-covid-19-pandemic Summary: https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CONNECT%20for%20Health%20Act%20of%202021_Summary.pdf < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth Requires Efforts to Improve Access to Reach Full Potential Mark Melchionna November 29, 2022 New research found that telehealth expansion lacks benefits when efforts to improve access are not present, which may often lead to health disparities. Regions with limited healthcare resources may not benefit from telehealth expansion, prompting the need for efforts to improve access, a new JAMA Network Open study finds. Throughout the recent expansion of telehealth, researchers continuously gained insight into new methods for reaching areas with limited amounts of healthcare resources, highlighting many areas and populations facing limited healthcare resources. The fact and theories about the relationship between telehealth and health disparities led researchers to conduct a cross-sectional study containing 2015 to 2019 American Community Survey data which was linked to national, state, and county-level metrics of healthcare access. Prior to the study, the authors hypothesized that internet access was poor in areas that lacked sufficient access to traditional healthcare resources. Known as healthcare deserts, communities with limited healthcare services such as pharmacies, hospitals, PCPs, and low-cost health centers were reviewed for the study. The data sources included dataQ and GoodRx databases for 60,249 pharmacies, federal information on primary care health professional shortage areas, and geospatial information. Researchers calculated the proportion of populations with internet access and the expected number of healthcare deserts, which represented the population-weighted mean number of deserts in a given region. They also noted statistics for metropolitan status for each state. Among 3,140 counties reviewed in the study, researchers determined that healthcare access and internet service availability corresponded with one another. They found that the states with the largest percentage of households without internet service were Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Alabama. The states with the lowest number of households without internet service and the lowest fitted number of healthcare deserts were Washington, New Hampshire, Colorado, Utah, California, and Maryland. Rural areas were more likely to have more health deserts and less internet service availability —78 percent compared to 26 percent of urban counties. Based on these findings, researchers concluded that telehealth expansion may not produce benefits within counties where telehealth is highly needed. Key factors that contribute to rural-urban health disparities in the US may include telehealth expansion without improving internet access as well as clinician shortages. Despite this conclusion, researchers noted limitations, which mainly related to the lack of digital literacy data that may have increased urban-rural disparities, along with the co-occurrence of poor internet and healthcare access across six domains. Previously, however, efforts have been made to support rural communities in obtaining telehealth resources. In September, Equum Medical worked with the National Rural Health Association to provide underserved rural communities with virtual resources. The goal of the collaboration was to assist rural hospitals as they aim to fill gaps in specialty care through tools such as of patient transfer assistance, remote patient monitoring, and help with telehealth implementation. See original article: https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/telehealth-requires-efforts-to-improve-access-to-reach-full-potential < Previous News Next News >

HHS to put $35M toward telehealth for family planning Kat Jercich November 29, 2021 The agency plans to use the funds to award about 60 one-time grants to Title X family planning providers, who must apply by February of next year. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would make $35 million in American Rescue Plan funding available for Title X family planning providers to strengthen their telehealth infrastructure and capacity. Title X family planning clinics help to insure access to a broad range of reproductive health services for low-income or uninsured individuals. "I’ve seen first-hand the critical role that telehealth plays in serving communities, particularly to protect so many families from COVID-19," said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement about the grant availability. "As providers transitioned from providing in-person primary care to offering telehealth services, we were able to test, vaccinate, and act as lifelines to communities disproportionately hit by the pandemic," he said. "Increasing our investment and access to telehealth services remains critical." WHY IT MATTERS The Office of Population Affairs funds 71 Title X family planning service grantees and supports hundreds of subrecipients and thousands of service sites around the country. Family planning includes a broad range of services related to reproductive health, including contraception, sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy testing. Although abortion care can be co-located with family planning services, Title X funds cannot be used to pay for it. Although some services require in-person treatment and exams, others can be carried out via telehealth – as evidenced by grantees' use of virtual care to help their patients during the COVID-19 crisis. Still, facilities may not have adequate technology available. "During the global COVID-19 pandemic, family planning programs have accelerated the use of telehealth," said Dr. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health, in a statement. "These ARP funds will facilitate the delivery of quality family planning services and reduce access barriers for people living in America who rely on the health care safety net for services," she added. HHS plans to use the funds to award about 60 one-time grants to active Title X grantees. Organizations must apply by February 3, 2022, and notices of awards will be announced before the project start date of May 1, 2022. THE LARGER TREND Even as the government has moved to shore up telehealth infrastructure via funding, the question of virtual care's future continues to hang over Congress. Despite requests from hundreds of advocacy organizations, legislators have so far failed to take action to permanently safeguard telehealth after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency – what some activists have referred to as "the telehealth cliff." "We recognize there are many unknowns related to the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic over the next 12 to 24 months," said American Telemedicine Association CEO Ann Mond Johnson in October. "However, we implore Secretary Becerra to provide as much predictability and certainty as possible to ensure adequate warning before patients are pushed over this looming cliff." ON THE RECORD "The pandemic has laid bare the important role that telehealth can play in our nation’s healthcare service delivery, and we are profoundly grateful for the opportunity to support continued investments in telehealth for the nation’s family planning safety net," said Jessica Swafford Marcella, HHS deputy assistant secretary for population affairs, in a statement. < Previous News Next News >

Healthcare Breaches: 40.7 Million Patients Affected By Dr. Maheu April 5, 2021 There were 758 breaches publicly posted to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) breach portal in 2020, affecting 40.7 million patients. However, the breaches listed on the HHS breach portal only reflect breaches affecting 500 or more patients, making it likely that the number of breaches was much higher. Each year Protenus, along with databreaches.net, conducts a breach report to assess the state of healthcare cybersecurity. Their 2021 Breach Barometer examined healthcare breaches occurring in 2020 and compared the findings to 2019 breaches. Read more about previous healthcare breaches on TBHI blogs: Healthcare Data Breach compromised 295,617 patients, Major Healthcare Hack Targets Mental Health Provider and Healthcare Breach: Email Breach Affects Behavioral Health Organization. More details on healthcare breaches, hacking incidents, insider breaches of 2020 are discussed below. Healthcare Breaches in 2020 There were 758 breaches publicly posted to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) breach portal in 2020, affecting 40.7 million patients. However, the breaches listed on the HHS breach portal only reflect breaches affecting 500 or more patients, making it likely that the number of breaches was much higher. Through their analysis of 2020 breaches, Protenus determined a 30% increase in healthcare breaches compared to 2019. Hacking Incidents in 2020 The leading cause of 2020 healthcare breaches resulted from hacking incidents representing 62% of reported incidents, with a 42% increase in these types of incidents from the previous year. The 277 hacking incidents compromised the protected health information (PHI) of more than 31 million patients. Part of the reason hacking skyrocketed in the healthcare sector is due to hackers exploiting the COVID pandemic, in some cases posing as government agencies to gain access to sensitive information. The issue was a major cause for concern, with the FBI and HHS warning healthcare organizations against “an increased and imminent cybercrime threat to U.S. hospitals and healthcare providers.” Researchers stated, “By making investments to protect patients, health systems, in turn, protect themselves from severe reputational damage, financial penalties, or care disruptions stemming from hacking incidents. Under obligation to do no harm, healthcare organizations must adopt advanced tools capable of preventing hacks and their frightening consequences for patients.” Insider Breaches in 2020 The second most common cause behind healthcare breaches in 2020 was insider breaches. Insider breaches occur when an employee of a healthcare organization accesses PHI without cause. Insider breaches represented 20% of reported incidents, with 111 incidents of insider breaches compromising the PHI of 8.5 million patients. “A zero-tolerance stance on snooping is important, but it will never be enough to prevent innocent mistakes or nefarious hackers,” researchers wrote. “Only by using compliance analytics to calculate the risk score of any anomalous access can organizations surface and prioritize interactions with data that truly warrant attention…. Noncompliance is critically important to identify and prevent, especially when organizations are struggling financially. Compliance incidents are costly because of all that goes into reconciling them. On top of paying penalties, health systems must do damage control,” they added. HIPAA Resources Need assistance with HIPAA compliance? Compliancy Group can help! They help you achieve HIPAA compliance, with Compliance Coaches® guiding you through the entire process. Find out more about the HIPAA Seal of Compliance® and Compliancy Group. Get HIPAA compliant today! Link: https://telehealth.org/healthcare-breaches-2/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=New+COVID-19+FCC+Telehealth+Grant+%7C+TBHI+Telehealth+News+4%2F14%2F21&utm_campaign=April+13th+Newsletter&vgo_ee=L60XUD6gIFzXzaAzbkkf6r35hO7C%2FF3J%2FgQB9Uu3XAY%3D < Previous News Next News >

Leveraging Telehealth Platforms to Enhance Provider Workflows, Adoption eVisit December 28, 2022 Implementing a telehealth platform can positively impact provider workflows in numerous ways, including easing administrative burdens, thereby leading to greater provider adoption and satisfaction. The pandemic drove telehealth use to new heights. Even though usage appears to be stabilizing, healthcare stakeholders largely agree that telehealth is here to stay, and they are making virtual care a vital part of their care delivery model. Polls conducted by the American Medical Association show that 80 percent of physicians said they were using telehealth tools in 2022, up from 28 percent in 2019 and only 14 percent in 2016. Further, in 2022, about 75 percent of physicians said being able to offer remote care was an important reason to use digital health tools, up from 60 percent in 2016. From the patient perspective, the benefits of telehealth, such as improved healthcare quality and patient experience, have become increasingly apparent. Epic conducted a research study analyzing 35 million telehealth visits between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2022. They found that "in nearly every specialty studied, most patients who had a telehealth visit did not require an in-person follow-up appointment in that specialty in the next three months." Only two of the 31 specialties — fertility and obstetrics — saw in-person follow-up rates above 50 percent, while genetics, nutrition, endocrinology, and mental health/psychiatry had in-person follow-up rates of 15 percent or less. But, as telehealth is integrated alongside in-person care, provider organizations must ensure they are selecting the right platform for their facility's unique needs and implementing them in a way that addresses — rather than adds to — clinician workflow challenges. KEY TELEHEALTH CAPABILITIES TO IMPROVE PROVIDER WORKFLOWS Amid the rapid rise in the adoption and use of telehealth during the pandemic, providers have faced several challenges in setting up telehealth programs. One of the most significant difficulties is related to the technology available, notes Eric Thrailkill, Venture Partner, Founder of the Telehealth Academy, and Chairman of Project Healthcare at the Nashville Entrepreneur Center. "While these solutions 'worked' per se, they were not designed to help health systems facilitate a hybrid care model with a goal to provide personalized care, regardless of location," he says. "During the shutdowns, almost all provider organizations were completely dedicated to supporting COVID-related patients and/or working through the backlog of previously scheduled appointments. Telehealth, due to the relaxation of certain federal and state regulatory requirements, consisted of phone-based services and two-way video technologies — speed to deploy was the operating mantra." Provider organizations succeeded in rapidly deploying new technologies, but they did not have time to optimize their workflows to account for certain processes — like documentation and revenue cycle — and support overarching population health and chronic care goals. During the pandemic, 'offering telehealth' could simply mean offering a two-way video solution. But now, with a couple of years of experience and data to pull from, providers are able to build robust telehealth programs to pair with in-person care. In short, a telehealth program looks at creating both a personal and efficient experience for the provider and patient before, during, and after the visit. Two-way video technology is just one piece of the puzzle. "Telehealth platforms should contain a virtual triage where location and assignment of a provider could occur," Thrailkill says. "This would also enable an appropriate assessment to ensure higher acuity visits are prioritized over lower acuity visits." For effective triage, relevant care teams must be able to easily coordinate their team and the patients in the virtual waiting room, chat with the patient ahead of, during, and post-visit, access the appointment, and interact with the patients while accurately documenting the encounter in their EHR and scheduling follow-up appointments. The digital experience should be smooth and the UI/UX strong to support adoption and satisfaction. Anything captured by the telehealth platform, say an image or an attachment, must have bidirectional clinical data flows enabled with the EHR to ensure the complete patient picture is captured for the patient's health record and billing and reporting purposes. Additionally, Thrailkill notes that as provider organizations become increasingly focused on addressing social determinants of health needs, they should consider telehealth platforms that can ingest data from multiple sources. Having this data at their fingertips at the point of care can help clinicians provide wraparound care services, including connecting patients with social services and community resources. Not only is a platform's ability to gather data from various sources essential to the success of hybrid care models, but so is seamless data exchange, which helps ensure continuity of care. "Continuity of care is the set of processes whereby the patient and his/her physician-led care team are involved and cooperating over time to achieve the highest level of quality of care," Thrailkill says. "This is difficult, if not impossible, given the fragmentation and healthcare data silos that exist today — both outside and inside provider organizations and health systems." Thus, telehealth platforms should have integration capabilities that provide clinicians with data from prior visits and information from facilities outside the organization where the patient has received care. But Thrailkill also cautions that providers should keep in mind patient rights regarding consent, privacy, and security when developing hybrid care models that leverage telehealth. IMPROVING WORKFLOWS ENHANCES PROVIDER SATISFACTION Selecting the right platform can help healthcare organizations optimize provider workflows, thereby boosting provider adoption and satisfaction. Providers at every level want to practice at "the top of their license," that is, utilize the highest level of their education and experience to deliver care, Thrailkill notes. For physicians, the health system's most expensive clinician, tasks like documentation and prior authorization processes can get in the way of this goal. Prior authorization, in particular, is a critical pain point, as some healthcare payers have complex processes that require much time and effort. "All of these administrative burdens are no doubt contributing to workforce challenges present today across essentially every professional level," Thrailkill says. But by using telehealth platforms with integration capabilities and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR)-based application programming interface structures, provider organizations can reduce administrative burdens like prior authorization processes through automation and enable them to lean on their medical assistants during the triage process of the telehealth visit. This increases the time available for patient care and optimizes capacity for the clinical team, he adds. Further, when implementing telehealth into hybrid care models, healthcare organizations should take a long-term view rather than regard telemedicine as a replacement for in-person care. "This will challenge the organization to think about the role of medical assistants, nurses, and specialty consult providers — not as follow-on activity, but incorporated into the visit," Thrailkill says. "This will ultimately lead to operational efficiencies and reduce the amount of administrative burden existing in early deployments of telehealth." As noted above, reducing administrative burdens and improving care delivery processes can lead to higher provider satisfaction, engagement levels, and adoption of virtual care across the health system. Incorporating telehealth is not a passing phase, and demand will likely grow in the years ahead. But to ensure its success, provider organizations must select technology that enhances provider workflows, thereby improving satisfaction and adoption. About eVisit eVisit is an enterprise virtual care delivery platform built for health systems and hospitals. It delivers innovative virtual experiences in care navigation, care delivery, and care engagement, improving margins at scale without sacrificing quality or patient and provider satisfaction. eVisit works seamlessly across enterprise service lines and departments to improve outcomes, reduce costs, and boost revenue. Based in Phoenix, Ariz., eVisit helps healthcare organizations innovate and succeed in today’s changing healthcare market. See original article: https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/leveraging-telehealth-platforms-to-enhance-provider-workflows-adoption < Previous News Next News >

Finding Our Way Out of the Pandemic Haze: What Telehealth Tools Are Medicare Providers Allowed to Keep, and Which Must They Leave Behind? Amy J. Dilcher, Kara Du November 30, 2022 During the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicare coverage expanded to include a vast arsenal of tools that help patients access medical services while keeping patients and practitioners safe. Many of these tools involve telehealth services and were made possible by the COVID-19 emergency blanket waivers, which went into effect when the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) declared a Public Health Emergency (the “PHE”). Some of these tools: Permitted providers to furnish distant site telehealth services; Expanded the use of audio-only telehealth to behavioral health counseling services; and Facilitated the conducting of telehealth appointments by practitioners from their homes while billing from their currently enrolled locations. As a result of these efforts, the use of telehealth and telemedicine exploded in 2020 according to an HHS Study. This growth was no surprise given the unparalleled advantages of conducting a variety of medical appointments from remote locations in a time where limiting one’s exposure to the COVID-19 virus was paramount. Despite the current trend towards relaxing previously stringent regulations on exposure and contact, many providers and patients prefer telehealth services as the primary method of treatment. This post provides an overview of recent developments in the adoption of telehealth tools by providers, the status of Medicare coverage for telemedicine services, the regulatory vision for the ascent out of the PHE, and fraud, waste and abuse considerations as we begin to make our way out of the pandemic haze. When does the PHE current expire? The blanket waivers that expand Medicare coverage of certain telehealth technology are in effect so long as the Secretary of HHS has declared a COVID-19 public health emergency. The first PHE was declared in 2020 and has been renewed every 90 days since then. The latest HHS extension for the PHE is effective through January 11, 2023. The PHE status is very likely to continue to be extended beyond next January given a possible surge in COVID-19 infections in the United States this winter, according to two Biden administration officials. Moreover, in a letter to the state governors, HHS has indicated that they will provide at least a 60-day notice before the current PHE ends (i.e., on or before November 11, 2022) in the event that it does not intend to issue an extension. To date, the agency has not provided that notice. Updates on the status of HHS declarations of public health emergencies are available via the federal government’s PHE tracker. Adoption of Telehealth Tools by Providers Looking towards the future, many providers anticipate keeping some COVID era telehealth tools in their arsenal after the PHE has ended. According to a recent study by the American Medical Association, tele-visit tools ranked highest in provider enthusiasm, provider adoption and improved patient outcomes in comparison to other digital health tools. The vast majority of physicians who have not yet incorporated these tools are seeking to utilize them in the next three years. The Regulatory Vision For the Ascent Out of the PHE CMS has outlined their strategy for assessing which blanket waivers should stay in effect after the last PHE extension expires. The strategy consists of three concurrent phases: Phase1: Evaluating blanket waivers based on the current stage of the PHE as compared to when the waivers were first issued. Phase 2: Keeping tools in place which would be the most helpful in future PHEs, to ensure a rapid response both locally and nationally. Phase 3: Continuing coverage of flexibilities that are aimed at producing high-quality care and health equity. CMS is working with the healthcare industry to holistically prepare our health care system for future PHEs. Medicare Coverage in Advance of Expiration of the PHE Effective as of January 1, 2022, CMS finalized a rule as part of the FY22 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that expanded Medicare coverage of telehealth for behavioral health services to facilitate greater access and equitable services for those who may not have access to mental health services providers. Most recently, on November 1, 2022, CMS issued the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) 2023 Final Rule (the “2023 Final Rule”), which includes policy revisions and guidance regarding Medicare telehealth services. For example, several services that are temporarily available as telehealth services for the PHE were made available through CY 2023 in order to allow additional time for the collection of data that may support their inclusion as permanent additions to the Medicare Telehealth Services List. CMS also confirmed its intention to implement provisions such as allowing telehealth services to be furnished in any geographic area and in any originating site setting via program instruction or other sub-regulatory guidance to ensure a smooth transition after the end of the PHE. Proposed Legislation to Continue and Expand Medicare Coverage of Telehealth Services The American Hospital Association is one of many groups that urged Congress to expand and make permanent the regulatory flexibilities granted to Medicare telehealth services during the PHE. This strong support in favor of extending and expanding Medicare coverage of telehealth flexibilities was repeated again in a letter sent by 375 organizations to Senate leaders on September 13, 2022. The letter indicates several specific telehealth tools, such as lifting in-person requirements for tele-mental health and waiver of location limitations, that have been among the most integral to bringing needed care to patients in the age of technology. To that end, there are currently several bills in the Senate and House, which would codify much of the progress in telehealth service coverage that providers and industry organizations are seeking. In the Senate, the Telehealth Extension and Evaluation Act was introduced in February of 2022. The bill proposes an extension of and modification to Medicare coverage of four specific telehealth tools. This expansion would continue for two years after the PHE expires. Representatives in the House introduced the Ensuring Telehealth Expansion Act of 2021 in January of 2021. This bill would make Medicare coverage of telehealth flexibilities permanent outside of the PHE. Recently, the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act of 2022 was passed by the House and is now being reviewed by the Senate. This bill modifies the extension of certain Medicare telehealth flexibilities and provides that some of them continue to apply until December 31, 2024, in the event that the PHE ends before that date. For example, the bill allows beneficiaries to continue to receive telehealth services at any site, regardless of type or location (e.g., the beneficiary’s home), occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, and audiologists to continue to furnish telehealth services, and federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics to continue to serve as the distant site (i.e., the location of the health care practitioner) for telehealth services. Fraud, Waste and Abuse of Telehealth Services The COVID-19 emergency blanket waivers have been a useful tool for healthcare providers, but the expansion of Medicare coverage of telehealth during the PHE has also presented the opportunity for fraud, waste and abuse. In a recent report (the “Report”) the HHS Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”), identified 1,714 out of 742,000 providers as “high risk” for fraud, waste, or abuse with respect to their billing practices for telehealth services. OIG identified several billing practices that may be indicative of providers it considers to be “high risk” of engaging in Medicare fraud, waste or abuse: Facility fees and telehealth fees are billed for the same visit; The highest, most expensive level of telehealth services is billed every time; Telehealth services are billed for a high number of days in any given year; Medicare fee-for-service and a Medicare Advantage plan are billed for the same service for a high proportion of services; A high average number of hours of telehealth services are billed per visit; Telehealth services are billed for a high number of beneficiaries; and Telehealth services and ordering medical equipment are billed for a high proportion of beneficiaries. Although the “high risk” providers submitted only a small percentage of the total number of claims for telehealth services, the amount of claims associated with these providers represented $127.7 million in Medicare fee-for-service payments. The Report also found that over half of the “high risk” providers were connected with at least one other “high risk” provider. The OIG provided several recommendations to CMS: Strengthen monitoring and targeted oversight of telehealth services; Conduct additional education outreach to providers including training sessions, educational materials, and webinars on appropriate telehealth billing practices; Establish billing modifiers to help providers identify circumstances in which non-physician clinical staff primarily render telehealth services under the supervision of a physician; Identify telehealth companies that bill Medicare by updating the Medicare provider enrollment application or working with the National Uniform Claim Committee to add a taxonomy code that identifies telehealth companies; and Conduct targeted reviews of the “high risk” providers identified in the Report. Final Thoughts The importance of telehealth services cannot be understated. Under the current PHE, providers have had the opportunity to deploy these tools in the emergency context, and at the same time have been able to demonstrate their efficacy and reliability in providing quality medical care to patients who would not otherwise have access to either because of coverage or geographic limitations. Nevertheless, given the rapid growth of the industry in recent years and the amount of Medicare dollars spent on telehealth services, it is prudent for healthcare providers to proactively review their telehealth billing practices and supporting documentation. Doing so will reduce the potential for billing errors and minimize compliance risks while improving quality control and financially protecting their organizations. See original article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/finding-our-way-out-pandemic-haze-what-telehealth-tools-are-medicare-providers < Previous News Next News >

Telehealth now serves unmet needs, says athenahealth Andrea Fox October 04, 2022 Virtual care is playing a more significant role in filling gaps in delivery, having evolved from pandemic-era visit replacement, according to a new study from the cloud IT developer. Increased telehealth utilization points to wider use as a diagnostic and triage tool, particularly among those with chronic conditions. WHY IT MATTERS New research, based on a Dynata survey of 2,000 U.S. adults that was commissioned by athenahealth conducted in June and July of this year, and data on booked and completed appointments through the athenahealth electronic health record suggest telehealth is now integrated across the care continuum. "Our data shows that after the height of the pandemic, many physicians continue to rely on telehealth, as they see the tremendous value it can provide," said Jessica Sweeney-Platt, vice president of research and editorial strategy at athenahealth, in a statement. The use of telehealth is especially evident among those with chronic conditions. While 24% of those surveyed say their health concern didn't warrant an in-person visit, 23% of respondents indicated their telehealth visits were scheduled check-ins related to chronic conditions, and 9% used telehealth as well for ad hoc care for their conditions. The respondents with chronic conditions reported using telehealth in place of as well as between visits to help manage their conditions, suggesting telehealth is serving a previously unmet need for proactive healthcare. Telehealth has also increased the willingness of patients to seek mental healthcare, with 25% of survey respondents indicating they opted for telehealth sessions to address new mental health conditions. Twenty-three percent shared that they were more likely to ask for mental health support because telehealth was available to them. The findings also revealed patterns of use based on gender and race. The EHR data from January 1, 2019, through April 30, 2022, evaluated in the study showed that in 2021, male providers had 24% lower odds of providing a telehealth visit than their female counterparts. Provider gender also affected patient adoption of telehealth. Patients who worked with a single male provider had 60% lower odds of adoption compared to patients with only a female provider. "Additionally, previous research has shown that female clinicians tend to spend more time with patients, which could further explain higher provider adoption of telehealth among females compared to males, with female providers using telehealth as an additional tool for connecting with patients," said Sweeney-Platt. The research also showed Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to use telehealth services, but less likely to do so with one dedicated provider, suggesting improved access to care but not improved continuity of care. THE LARGER TREND A previous study of 40.7 million commercially-insured adults in the United States – a study of a nationally representative population – published earlier this year found that patients with acute clinical conditions who first sought care via telehealth were more likely to follow up at the emergency room or be admitted to the hospital that those who sought care in person. However, when it came to chronic conditions, follow-up was less likely for those with an initial telehealth visit, finding telehealth comparable to in-person care. The researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, along with collaborators from Blue Health Intelligence and the Digital Medicine Society compared telehealth and in-person encounters by looking at factors associated with changing patterns of telehealth use beyond the initial months of the pandemic. ON THE RECORD "Our research brings to light the vital role telehealth can play in patient care. Not only does it increase access to care, but it can drive better patient outcomes when used as an extension of in-person visits to provide continuity of care," said Sweeney-Platt in announcing the findings. "Telehealth is now a core tenet of healthcare delivery in the U.S.," said Greg Carey, director of regulatory and government affairs at athenahealth, according to a prepared statement about telehealth fulfilling its promise on the company's website. Correction: The original version of the article indicated that the Dynata survey was of athenaOne network patients. Andrea Fox is senior editor of Healthcare IT News. Email: afox@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/telehealth-now-serves-unmet-needs-says-athenahealth < Previous News Next News >

Telemedicine boosts access, decreases inequities in Montana Bill Siwicki October 10, 2022 The University of Montana College of Health has expanded its telehealth offerings across many disciplines to reach more people, especially in tribal communities. Montana has unique challenges in providing healthcare to its widely dispersed population of just over 1 million people. THE PROBLEM Out of 56 counties in Montana, 55 are designated as Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs), limiting access to both urgent and routine medical visits. The cost of travel and long distances between healthcare providers and patients are commonly cited reasons for patients to delay or avoid medical care. The use of telehealth technology can improve healthcare access for Montanans living in rural and tribal communities by providing access to primary care and specialty services. Montana also is home to a significant Native American population, which makes up about 7% of residents. Tribal members experience significant health disparities due partly to inequitable healthcare access. "These pre-existing strains have left many rural and tribal communities particularly vulnerable to broad-reaching impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic," said Erica Woodahl, director of the L.S. Skaggs Institute for Health Innovation and a professor at the Skaggs School of Pharmacy at the University of Montana. "Rural and tribal populations have a higher burden of chronic disease and comorbidities known to increase the risk of morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19," she continued. "Life expectancy of all Americans has decreased during the two years since the pandemic, but no group more than tribal people whose life expectancy has dropped almost seven years." The pandemic also further reduced access to routine care leading to an increase in preventable complications due to chronic conditions, including emergency room visits, hospitalizations and overall healthcare costs, she added. "Additionally, communities without nearby clinics or hospitals have not had adequate access to coronavirus testing or care, leaving rural and tribal patients vulnerable to the spread of COVID-19," she noted. "This increases pre-existing strains on rural healthcare systems due to provider shortages, limited hospital beds and other resource constraints." PROPOSAL In the telemedicine work of the University of Montana College of Health in Missoula, services would be provided through a centralized hub at the university with synchronous and asynchronous telehealth services provided to rural and tribal communities in partnership with clinics, hospitals and pharmacies across the state. The equipment purchased with help from a grant from the FCC telehealth grant program would allow for the expansion of services within UM's College of Health. "While the initial utility of telehealth technologies to improve care for underserved populations focused on immediate provision of clinical services disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, benefits to patients will extend beyond the pandemic to address the challenges of providing healthcare to Montanans," explained Shayna Killam, PharmD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Skaggs School of Pharmacy at the University of Montana. "Telehealth technologies provide clinicians with the tools necessary to bridge the gap in healthcare access and offer quality healthcare to Montana patients," she continued. "Services will specifically target patients living in rural and tribal communities with chronic medical conditions and comorbidities." The organization anticipates a broad reach across Montana, leveraging partnerships with clinical training sites and clinical affiliates to provide centralized telehealth services to a wide range of patients. "Programs in UM's College of Health were awarded $684,593 from the FCC," Killam reported. "Funds were used to purchase telehealth equipment and connected medical devices, providing critical and remote services for patients in Montana." Telehealth equipment will be used by faculty, residents and students affiliated with the University of Montana College of Health. Recipients of funding include the following: Skaggs School of Pharmacy (SSOP). Family Medicine Residency of Western Montana (FMRWM). School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science (UMPT). School of Speech, Language, Hearing and Occupational Sciences (SLHOS). MARKETPLACE There are many vendors of telemedicine technology and services on the health IT market today. Healthcare IT News published a special report highlighting many of these vendors with detailed descriptions of their products. Click here to read the special report. MEETING THE CHALLENGE Pharmacist-driven programs provide services for community-based chronic disease screening, education and management, including management of diabetes, asthma, cardiovascular risk and mental health through point-of-care testing, medication therapy management visits and consultations with telehealth pharmacists. "Connected medical devices and video conferencing hardware will be used to provide routine and urgent care visits with medical residents and providers affiliated with the FMRWM, including diagnostics and monitoring, chronic disease management, prenatal care and mental health services," Woodahl said. "UMPT programs offer home-based visits and services in end-user sites in rural and tribal communities, including remote evaluations enhanced with telehealth technology, such as vestibular function testing and gait monitoring devices, telepresence robots, and video consults with patients and other healthcare professionals," she added. Clinicians and students in SLHOS will conduct telehealth visits via high-quality video and audio equipment, which facilitate effective evaluation and treatment for articulation and voice disorders. USING FCC AWARD FUNDS The University of Montana College of Health was awarded $684,593 from the FCC telehealth grant fund to purchase telemedicine kits to enable critical, remote telehealth services and to provide internet-connected devices for remote patient monitoring services for underserved, rural and tribal populations within the state. "UM's College of Health has used the FCC telehealth award funds to expand telehealth programs offered by the interprofessional disciplines with an overarching goal of increasing healthcare access and addressing inequities in care," Killam explained. "In addition to providing accessible and equitable healthcare, telehealth technologies will be used to train future health professionals," she continued. "Proactive training of our health professions students has the potential to transform the healthcare landscape in Montana and to overcome the challenges presented by traditional models of care." The equipment purchased has empowered physical therapists to engage in remote monitoring of patients as they complete interventions within their home, said Jennifer Bell, PT, clinical associate professor, school of physical therapy and rehabilitation science. "Oftentimes, patients have difficulty with balance and functional mobility within their home," she noted. "By utilizing technology, we are able to see a patient's home environment and support their ability to move around, minimize the risk of falls and complete a home exercise program." Twitter: @SiwickiHealthIT Email the writer: bsiwicki@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/telemedicine-boosts-access-decreases-inequities-montana?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=womeninhit < Previous News Next News >

The intersection of remote patient monitoring and AI Bill Siwicki October 25, 2022 Robin Farmanfarmaian, a Silicon Valley AI entrepreneur and author, explains how artificial intelligence can boost the efficacy of RPM and help democratize healthcare. Robin Farmanfarmaian is a Silicon Valley-based entrepreneur working in technology and artificial intelligence. She has been involved with more than 20 early-stage biotech and healthcare startups, including ones working on medical devices and digital health. With more than 180 speaking engagements in 15 countries, she has educated audiences on many aspects of technology intersecting healthcare, including artificial intelligence and the shift in healthcare delivery to the patient's home. She has written four books, including "The Patient as CEO: How Technology Empowers the Healthcare Consumer" and, most recently, "How AI Can Democratize Healthcare: The Rise in Digital Care." Healthcare IT News spoke with Farmanfarmaian to discuss where AI is impacting remote patient monitoring today and how AI can democratize healthcare. Q. Where is remote patient monitoring today? Where do you see RPM five and 10 years from now? A. Remote patient monitoring is still in the first five years of adoption and integration into the healthcare system, and the pandemic accelerated this trend by illustrating the need and value of RPM. There are many clinical-grade devices now that patients can buy or use to measure and monitor various vital signs, including EKG, heart rate, heart rate variability, blood pressure and blood oxygen level. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is one of the organizations that sets the standard of care in the U.S. healthcare system, and CMS launched CPT codes for remote physiological monitoring more than four years ago. CMS has expanded coverage and specificity over the past few years with additional and updated CPT codes. In 2022, CMS launched CPT codes for remote therapeutic monitoring (RTM). These codes cover RTM for respiratory and musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, such as remote physical therapy and COPD inhaler tracking. Considering that most of healthcare happens in a patient's daily life, not the occasional clinic visit, this is a big step forward toward helping patients use their treatments in the best possible way on a daily basis. Many mainstream corporations have launched their own wearables that have cleared the FDA, blurring the lines between healthcare companies and consumer-facing tech companies. Apple, Amazon, Google and Samsung are some of the giants that can shift consumer habits on a national scale, and they all have launched mainstream wearables. For instance, the Apple Watch has outsold the entire Swiss watch industry multiple years in a row, and the device has an EKG monitor that has cleared the FDA for use with people over the age of 22 and with no history of arrhythmia. This trend is great news because many people may already be tracking something about their health, whether that's blood pressure monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring or even a simple accelerometer for step count. That makes it significantly more likely a patient will continue to use the device if their healthcare professional recommends it and has access to the data. In 10 years, remote patient monitoring will be mainstream, and likely reimbursed by all the major payers. We're already seeing that RPM has the ability to catch hospital readmissions days before they happen. The healthcare industry is experiencing a revolution in vital-sign measurement devices, with many companies innovating on ways to collect vital signs. New innovations include taking vital signs using a smartwatch, using just a smartphone or laptop camera, breathalyzer devices for standard vital signs like BP and Sp02, sensors in clothing, epidermal sensors and subcutaneous sensors. Within 10 years, tracking vital signs will be done in ways that are more seamless and effortless for the patient, such as subcutaneous sensors that last five years. Eversense already has an FDA-cleared implantable sensor for continuous glucose monitoring that passively records glucose levels 24/7. Q. How did artificial intelligence first come into the picture with RPM? What was the connection? A. Some of these new FDA-cleared devices measure vital signs continuously, which means they are collecting thousands of data points a day on each patient. BiolntelliSense has a medical-grade rechargeable sensor that sticks to the chest and passively measures more than 20 vital signs, recording 1,440 measurements a day. Humans don't have the ability to analyze and interpret thousands of data points every day for every patient – which is why these clinical-grade wearables and sensors have an AI software component to manage, monitor, analyze and interpret the thousands of daily data points per patient. The AI software typically flags or alerts the healthcare team and patient when the vital signs are outside predetermined ranges, personalized to the individual. While it is still early in this trend, there are examples of new innovations that only exist because of continuous, personalized data collection. January AI uses the previous three days of data from a continuous glucose monitor, combined with vital-sign data, to predict glucose response in real time to individual foods, educating the patient at the point of the decision-making. This helps manage diabetes in a more personalized and predictive way, instead of the standard reactive way diabetes is currently treated. But January AI isn't just for people with diabetes. They work with athletes, people with pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and people who just want to be as healthy as they can be. This education in real time doesn't just assume the standard diet for diabetes is right for every individual or that there is any one healthy diet that works for everyone. People don't react the same way to food as others, or even to themselves. Everyone has a unique glucose response to food based on many factors, including that day's activity level, sleep, amount of fiber, stress, weight, age and many more data points. AI-based software, combined with RPM, allows personalized care 24/7. Q. Today, how does AI work with RPM to improve patient care and outcomes? A. When RPM is used for serious conditions, it can be the difference between life and death. VitalConnect ran a study on their single-lead EKG VitalPatch and was able to predict hospital readmission for cardiac patients 6.5 days in advance. Alacrity Care is working on RPM for oncology that combines vital signs taken with FDA-cleared devices including the Omron blood pressure watch and the Oxitone pulse-oximeter watch with a daily oncology practitioner check-in and blood labs taken in the home. This is to catch serious, life-threatening problems such as neutropenia, sepsis and cytokine storm days before a patient with cancer is in serious medical trouble. Catching these three conditions early can be the difference between life and death. New AI-based software tools are clearing the FDA, including one earlier this year for TytoCare that analyzes lung sounds for the patient and the remote clinician using a connected stethoscope in the home. There are other companies working on sensors in clothing that are covered by Medicare. SirenCare has socks available by prescription that monitor the temperature on the bottom of the foot. For patients with diabetes, a hotspot on the bottom of the foot could lead to a skin ulcer, which could eventually lead to an amputation if the wound doesn't heal. With access to the continuous data, the software can alert the patient and clinician when there is a problem so it can be treated before the skin breaks. The promise and goal of RPM is to keep patients safely in their homes and catch problems early, before they become serious or emergency issues. Q. You have a new book out with Michael Ferro, "How AI Can Democratize Healthcare." How does that theme fit in with the combination of AI and RPM? A. When dealing with AI, life begins at 1 billion data points. There are some major problems with traditional healthcare datasets that exist today to train software. Most healthcare data is locked into silos, whether that is the EHR, faxes, the payer or in clinical notes. In fact, when I get lab results from my physician through the hospital's patient portal, it is uploaded as a scanned fax and saved as a PDF that is not machine readable, and sometimes, not even human readable. While we are seeing interoperability move forward, there is still a long way to go. The typical healthcare data is collected on people at one point in time, such as their annual physical or if they are hospitalized. Frequently, that means the data doesn't include an individual's baseline, taken in their daily environment. It also means that most of the clinical-grade vital-sign data is on people who are already sick enough to be in a hospital. By shifting the data collection to the patient's daily life, RPM has the ability to collect clinical-grade data when people are in all stages of health and at all ages. When collected continuously in machine-readable databases, once RPM is more fully adopted, those databases have the ability to dwarf EHR data from a hospital or health system. That is the type of training data that can give healthcare a much deeper look and understanding of normal vital signs across ages, genders and genetics. RPM helps democratize healthcare in a way never before possible. Many people don't live within easy access to a doctor or clinic. Trying to get to a clinic during their open hours can be next to impossible for some people due to many factors – from not being able to take off work, school, finding transportation, distance, childcare and other barriers, to traveling to a physical clinic. Even for established patients, specialist doctors are frequently booked out one to three months in advance, which gives a medical problem time to advance and potentially get much worse. That, in turn, lowers the odds of a successful outcome when and if that patient is ever seen and treated by a healthcare professional. Instead of trying to physically get to a clinic, RPM can be used to determine when someone needs to see a healthcare professional and can make a virtual care visit much more effective. The best healthcare is the healthcare that actually gets done. RPM enables passive healthcare in someone's daily environment, 24/7. Twitter: @SiwickiHealthIT Email the writer: bsiwicki@himss.org Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication. See original article: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/intersection-remote-patient-monitoring-and-ai?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=womeninhit < Previous News Next News >

Principal Deputy Inspector General Grimm on Telehealth By Christi A. Grimm, HHS-OIG Principal Deputy Inspector General February 26, 2021 It has been just over a year into the COVID-19 pandemic and we remember the over 500,000 Americans who have lost their lives due to COVID-19. That figure is a stark reminder of the critical mission of the Department of Health and Human Services. Challenges in responding to the pandemic have been many, thorny and unprecedented. Consequential decisions often were made quickly to respond to the emergency and provide relief in the way of funding, supplies, and reductions in regulatory and procedural burden. This quick response and scope of relief make oversight, enforcement, transparency, program integrity, and accountability all the more important. It has been just over a year into the COVID-19 pandemic and we remember the over 500,000 Americans who have lost their lives due to COVID-19. That figure is a stark reminder of the critical mission of the Department of Health and Human Services. Challenges in responding to the pandemic have been many, thorny and unprecedented. Consequential decisions often were made quickly to respond to the emergency and provide relief in the way of funding, supplies, and reductions in regulatory and procedural burden. This quick response and scope of relief make oversight, enforcement, transparency, program integrity, and accountability all the more important. Early in the pandemic, OIG, along with many others, recognized the value of expanding options for accessing health care services. Telehealth is a prime example. Where telehealth and other remote access technologies were once a matter of convenience, the public health emergency made them a matter of safety for many beneficiaries. In some cases, health care providers needed regulatory flexibility to provide safe and effective care remotely during the ongoing pandemic. In March 2020, we issued policy statements and FAQs in support of increased telehealth flexibilities. A year later, there is a robust national conversation about expanding coverage for telehealth services based on the experience providers and patients have had during the pandemic. For most, telehealth expansion is viewed positively, offering opportunities to increase access to services, decrease burdens for both patients and providers, and enable better care, including enhanced mental health care. A 2019 OIG study found that telehealth can be an important tool to improve patient access to behavioral health services. And as we observed in recent rulemaking, OIG recognizes the promise that telehealth and other digital health technologies have for improving care coordination and health outcomes. It is important that new policies and technologies with potential to improve care and enhance convenience achieve these goals and are not compromised by fraud, abuse, or misuse. OIG is conducting significant oversight work assessing telehealth services during the public health emergency. Once complete, these reviews will provide objective findings and recommendations that can further inform policymakers and other stakeholders considering what telehealth flexibilities should be permanent. This work can help ensure the potential benefits of telehealth are realized for patients, providers, and HHS programs. We anticipate the first work products to be published later this year. We are aware of concerns raised regarding enforcement actions related to "telefraud" schemes, and it is important to distinguish those schemes from telehealth fraud. In the last few years, OIG has conducted several large investigations of fraud schemes that inappropriately leveraged the reach of telemarketing schemes in combination with unscrupulous doctors conducting sham remote visits to increase the size and scale of the perpetrator's criminal operations. In many cases, the criminals did not bill for the sham telehealth visit. Instead, the perpetrators billed fraudulently for other items or services, like durable medical equipment or genetic tests. We will continue to vigilantly pursue these "telefraud" schemes and monitor the evolution of scams that may relate to telehealth. As our work and the national conversation continues, OIG believes there is a shared goal: ensuring that telehealth delivers quality, convenient care for patients and is not compromised by fraud. As we continue our COVID-19 oversight and enforcement work, we look forward to providing objective, independent information to stakeholders and policymakers. < Previous News Next News >