Federal standards for telemedicine reimbursement are becoming more of a reality. The newly reintroduced Senate Bill 870, called Creating High Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic Care Act of 2017 (also referred to as CHRONIC), aims to hone in on Medicare payment reform in order to expand telemedicine services for chronic disease management and at-home care coordination.
Healthcare organizations are increasingly looking to adopt telemedicine as a way to provide less expensive care to patients, particularly in a value-based care environment. However, providers may fail to achieve maximum benefits from the technology if they don’t take workflows and human factors into consideration.
The Interstate Medical Licensure Compact eases the path for telehealth licensing in 18 member states, giving physicians the opportunity to practice telehealth across state lines.
Telehealth in the United States is entering a new phase of accelerating growth. Indicators of this next phase include: FDA approval of remote diagnostic tools; the rapid evolution of telehealth platforms focused on managing chronic conditions as well as achieving specific patient outcomes; the expansion of telehealth services offered by private and government operated healthcare systems (such as the Veterans Administration).
While there may be considerable variation in telemedicine policies and reimbursement models from state to state, standards in some specialized types of telemedicine should be consistent, according to new practice guidelines from the American Telemedicine Association.
Companies in the rapidly growing field of telehealth say their services can cut health care spending by allowing patients to connect with doctors without leaving home. But new research argues these phone- and video-based services instead may be driving up costs.
A study from Harvard Medical School and the nonprofit RAND Corp. argues that telehealth increases access to care but can also inflate spending by encouraging more people to seek treatment for minor ailments.
It could be easier for doctors from outside the District to practice medicine in D.C. — largely using telemedicine — in the future if a bill to be introduced Tuesday by D.C. Councilman Vincent Gray ultimately passes.
The measure would authorize the District to join a compact of 17 states created by the Federation of State Medical Boards that have agreed to standardize and expedite the process for licensing physicians from other jurisdictions that are also members of the group.
Telemedicine is a tool of veterinary practice, not a separate discipline within the profession, and must be conducted within the veterinarian-client-patient relationship as defined by the laws and regulations of the relevant state authority. Without a VCPR, telemedicine should not be practiced, and any advice provided should be general and not specific.
Washington patients could receive telemedicine services from their own home and pay the same rate for telemedicine services as they would for in-person services under two bipartisan bills heard in committee Thursday morning.
The results are in for the Scripps Translational Science Institute’s Wired For Health study, and there’s no sugar-coating it: they’re disappointing for those working in digital health. The six-month randomized control trial found no short-term benefit in health costs or outcomes for patients monitoring their health with connected devices.