Fees a Sore Subject for Doctors as Telehealth Moves Forward
Physicians who serve on the Florida Board of Medicine will have no say over one of the most-contentious parts of the law: registration costs for out-of-state doctors who can use telehealth to begin caring for Florida residents.
July 26, 2019 at 01:05 PM
4 minute read
The Florida panel that regulates medical doctors will begin putting in place rules that are designed to make the state's new telehealth law a reality.
But physicians who serve on the Florida Board of Medicine will have no say over one of the most-contentious parts of the law: registration costs for out-of-state doctors who can use telehealth to begin caring for Florida residents.
Florida-licensed doctors pay a $350 application fee and $355 for their initial licenses, according to a state website. But out-of-state physicians can register with the state to begin providing telehealth without paying a dime.
“It's patently unfair,” said Jacksonville health care attorney and lobbyist Chris Nuland, whose clients include physician organizations.
Lawmakers this spring passed a bill (HB 23) that creates a regulatory framework for telehealth, including authorizing the state to register doctors and collect fees. But a constitutional amendment required the Legislature to include the new fees in a separate piece of legislation (HB 7067).
Gov. Ron DeSantis, however, vetoed HB 7067, which would have required the Department of Health's medical boards to charge a $150 registration fee for out-of-state health care professionals seeking to provide telehealth services to Florida residents. DeSantis said the fees would have undercut efforts to provide a cheaper way of delivering health services.
Florida law requires that the costs of regulating health care practitioners be borne by people who receive licenses and licensure applicants. The bill also would have required a biennial renewal fee of $150.
Florida Medical Association General Counsel Jeff Scott called DeSantis' veto of the fee bill “interesting.”
“We felt the fee was too low,” said Scott, whose group represents doctors across the state.
According to the latest available data, it is expected to cost the state $33 million to regulate the 72,040 licenses under control of the Board of Medicine between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2020.
Telehealth, a term insurance companies have coined, involves using the internet and other technology to provide services to patients remotely. Telehealth, or telemedicine as physicians prefer to call it, is not a type of health care service but rather a mode to deliver services.
Florida providers and hospitals lag behind their peers nationally in the use of telehealth, according to a 2016 survey conducted by a trio of agencies. The results showed that 45% of hospitals responding to the survey said they provided telehealth, while only 6% of practitioners, such as physicians, did.
Physicians have argued the way to increase telehealth participation is to ensure payment parity, which would require insurance companies to reimburse for telehealth services no differently than if the services were delivered in person.
Insurance companies and managed-care plans are waiting for the Board of Medicine to approve the necessary telehealth rules, said Wences Troncoso, vice president and general counsel of the Florida Association of Health Plans. He added that there will be “new potential contracting opportunities” once the rules are in place.
The Board of Medicine will meet Aug. 2 in Coral Gables, a day after holding a series of committee meetings.
Paul Kluding, senior director of public relations for the health insurer Florida Blue, said out-of-state physicians haven't been contacting the company.
He said, though, that the company is “excited” to offer telehealth services to customers.
“It provides them with additional choice, convenience and access to care,” he said, adding that by the beginning of next year telehealth services will be available to most Florida Blue individual and group insurance members.
Christine Sexton reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readGC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250