Telemedicine Being Stopped by Legal Wrangling

Legal concerns are the nemesis of telehealth. While many are blaming legal roadblocks, I say it is many doctors and state medical boards that are erecting legal roadblocks to telehealth or telemedicine. Currently, there is no uniform legal approach to telehealth.

States retain significant control over what telehealth services are covered and will be reimbursed by Medicaid. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have some coverage for telehealth, and nearly all reimburse for live video telehealth. The majority of states do not restrict Medicaid reimbursement for telehealth to rural locations, unlike current Medicare requirements.

Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have parity laws that cover private insurers and reimbursement to telehealth services. These laws require commercial health insurance companies to cover services provided through telehealth to the same extent as those services are covered in person. Many variations exist across the states, though, in how states and private insurers pay out these reimbursements and what they cover. The variations in these parity laws created large differences in telehealth coverage across the country.

While many states mandate reimbursement, not all require reimbursement to be equivalent to or at the same rate as in-person services. Colorado, Missouri, and Virginia require payment on the same basis as in-person services, which allows them to take into consideration the cost differences of telehealth versus in-person services. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have full parity, meaning coverage and reimbursement is comparable from in-person to telehealth services. Arizona is the only state that limits parity to geographic regions and specific services. Michigan, Oregon, and Vermont only authorize reimbursement for telehealth that uses interactive, audio-visual systems, and Arkansas places "arbitrary limits" on patient locations and provider types, as well as requiring an in-person visit to establish a patient-provider relationship. Nevada is the only state to extend parity to workers' compensation programs.

Proponents of telehealth and parity in reimbursement laud the potential cost savings over in-person care. Telehealth could achieve such substantial savings for a number of reasons, including the potential reduction of chronic condition-associated readmissions through mobile health monitoring technologies and a decrease in unnecessary use of emergency appointments through remote visits with nurses instead.

Likewise, consumer demand for telehealth services is on the rise, with more and more patients looking to mobile applications, online services, and health tracking devices to monitor blood pressure and heart rate continuously. Additionally, many consumers see the positive benefits of telehealth: access to care, efficiency in services, saved time and energy, less stress and anxiety, and even improved well-being for family caregivers.

Opponents of telehealth, however, argue that telehealth services are not equivalent to in-person services and therefore should not receive parity to in-person services in reimbursements.

1. First, opponents suggest that new technology should be approached with caution, as it sometimes proves unreliable and might lead to improper diagnosis and treatment, absent the physical examination. For example, the American Optometric Association opposed online eye exams (and parity in their reimbursement) and called such methods "substandard model[s] of care."
2. Second, many express concerns about the overall quality of care that can be provided using telehealth and worry that instead of correcting issues of access, telehealth might actually create greater inequity in the quality of care available in rural areas.
3. Third, there are also concerns that many telehealth appointments might be one-time engagements, which creates problems when the health data from that appointment might not be added to a patient's primary care physician. This creates gaps in records, which ultimately could have major effects on diagnosis and treatment at later times. Some telehealth services might place the burden of communicating telehealth appointments and results on the patient.
4. Fourth, many are concerned about patient privacy, an area of growing concern in traditional services. The move toward telehealth programs means moving toward more digitalization of medical records, which then could leave records vulnerable to hacking and infiltration.
5. Fifth, some argue that telehealth simply should not be reimbursed the same amount as in-person care precisely because of the cost savings associated with it. If telehealth services save money and are more efficient, the opponents argue, reimbursement for services should mirror those savings. Because of the high risks, possible lower quality of care, and cost savings of telehealth, many physicians believe that telemedicine should not be reimbursed on the same levels as in-person care.