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
© 2025 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 AllRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readAttorneys, Health Care Officials Face Nearly $80M RICO Suit Over Allegedly Fabricated Spreadsheet
Amid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Medical Student's Error Takes Center Stage in High Court 'Agency' Dispute
- 2'A Shock to the System’: Some Government Attorneys Are Forced Out, While Others Weigh Job Options
- 3Lackawanna County Lawyer Fails to Shake Legal Mal Claims Over Sex With Client
- 4Florida Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss in $150M Plane Crash Lawsuit Involving Flow La Movie
- 5HSF Accounts Show US Operating Losses Last Year But Revenue Increased Slightly
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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