/ Print /

  • linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    Telehealth reimbursement under the microscope

     

    Twenty-nine states plus Washington, D.C., have telehealth commercial payment statutes, with bills under development in several states. Examples of enacted laws in the first half of 2015 include Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and Washington.

    And yet, even in some states with a coverage law (particularly ones with vaguely-drawn statutes), health plans impose policies restricting telehealth coverage in ways that do not benefit their own members, such as only offering coverage for members in rural areas or at certain “originating sites.”

    Health plans can significantly benefit from increasing care management access to all their members, including those in urban areas. Moreover, some plans cover telehealth services at only a fraction of the equivalent in-person rate. In so doing, the plan actually creates a disincentive for their network providers to invest in (or even offer) telehealth services to the members. These policies do nothing to help a plan manage the care of its member population or its long-term costs.

    Related: Top Five Industry Challenges of 2015

    Health plans need to be smart about telehealth benefits. They should proactively engage providers and develop meaningful contract arrangements, payment models, and coverage policies with the goal of promoting cost-effective utilization to harness the benefits (both short-term and long-term) of telehealth as a component of population health management.

    Viable models exist out in the market, and we continue to work on provider telehealth and virtual care contracts using a variety of alternative payment methodologies, leaving fee-for-service reimbursement behind.

    For those health plans that choose to sit on the sidelines, the likely result will be one or both of the following: their state lawmakers enact a telehealth payment parity law requiring the plan to cover telehealth and pay for telehealth services at the same or equivalent rate as in-person services; or the plan’s competitors will proactively incorporate telehealth networks, be hailed as visionaries for population health, and consume market share.

     

    Nathaniel Lacktman is a partner at Foley & Lardner. He is a healthcare regulatory, compliance and business lawyer with a focus on telemedicine and innovative healthcare arrangements. Follow him on Twitter @Lacktman or email him at [email protected]

    0 Comments

    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • No comments available

    Follow Us On Twitter

    Find us on Facebook

    Latest Tweets Follow