Coronavirus Gives Telemedicine a Boost: What Health Care Leaders Need to Know
The fast-spreading novel coronavirus is increasing the use of telemedicine across the country and in Texas. Telemedicine provides a way for patients…
April 07, 2020 at 03:54 PM
5 minute read
The fast-spreading novel coronavirus is increasing the use of telemedicine across the country and in Texas. Telemedicine provides a way for patients to get medical advice without visiting a crowded doctor's office, and in the case of rural areas, without traveling long distances. In the wake of COVID-19, Texas, other states and the federal government have relaxed certain regulations, clearing the way for health care providers and patients to use telemedicine.
Here are two key changes made in Texas:
- Gov. Greg Abbott suspended certain requirements regarding the establishment of a doctor-patient relationship for a telemedicine visit. Now, a phone consultation is sufficient to create that relationship. Following the governor's action, the Texas Medical Board issued new relaxed guidance, which clarified that audio-only telephone calls would be sufficient to establish a physician-patient relationship for all purposes, and may be used for diagnosis, treatment and ordering of tests for any conditions (not just for issues or conditions related to the COVID 19).
- Abbott also directed the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) to issue a new emergency telemedicine rule. That provision means physicians and other healthcare professionals in Texas must be paid by insurance plans regulated by the TDI for medical visits they conduct over the phone at the same rate they would receive for in-person visits.
These changes are significant, but they do not affect the standard of care for the practice of medicine in Texas. The Texas Medical Board's stated purpose in relaxing the telemedicine technology rules is that strict compliance at this time "could prevent, hinder, or delay timely delivery of necessary medical services in relation to efforts to cope with the declared disaster." Healthcare providers should keep this purpose in mind when determining whether any telephone-only visit is appropriate, sufficient, or necessary.
Telemedicine is also benefiting from an easing of rules at the federal level. Medicare now covers more aspects of telehealth services and makes reimbursement to providers easier:
- Medicare coverage has been expanded to enable beneficiaries to receive a wider range of telemedicine services. Before the coronavirus pandemic, Medicare reimbursement for telehealth was limited to services: (i) provided in rural communities; (ii) provided at designated sites; or (iii) at home in some limited circumstances, such as a patient on dialysis for end stage renal disease. Under the new emergency declaration waiver, a provider may temporarily seek reimbursement for telehealth visits provided to a patient in their home and other settings. The services that can be reimbursed include "office" visits, mental health counseling, and preventive health screenings. Initially Medicare said this could only be used with an existing patient, but the recently passed CARES Act removed this requirement so now physicians can see new patients via a telehealth visit.
- Medicare providers can bill immediately under this new and expanded coverage for dates of service on or after March 6, 2020. Medicare will reimburse telehealth services under the Physician Fee Schedule at the same amount as in-person services. Medicare coinsurance and deductibles still apply for telehealth services, however, the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) has also issued a policy statement indicating that providers may reduce or waive a beneficiary's coinsurance and deductible requirements for federal healthcare telehealth services furnished during the state of emergency (a period of up to 90 days, unless extended). This temporary flexibility does not modify any other applicable coverage or payment rules, or prohibitions on kickbacks and referrals.
- The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has also attempted to make it easier for services across state lines. Specifically, it has temporarily waived requirements that out-of-state providers must be licensed in the state where the patient is located. Instead, if a provider is licensed in at least one state, the provider may be reimbursed for treatment of patients in another state via telemedicine, as long as the state where the patient lives has waived its licensing requirements and is allowing out-of-state doctors to practice telemedicine.
- Many states are following the federal government's lead on this issue and waiving certain licensing requirements involving telemedicine. Nevertheless, most of these states still require a provider to apply for some type of temporary or emergency license.
It is important to note that while CMS has tried to allow for nationwide coverage, each state still controls who can practice within its borders. As a result, all providers must continue to adhere to all applicable state laws and medical board regulations of telehealth. Therefore, before a provider sees patients in a state where they are not currently licensed, they should ensure they meet those state's specific licensing regulations and they understand the telehealth regulations specific to that state.
It is crucial for providers to keep in mind that HHS implemented these modifications to ensure reimbursement for providers who furnish covered items and services in good faith but are unable to comply with traditional requirements as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Noncompliance outside these conditions may result in a denial of reimbursement or even a finding of fraud or abuse.
These changes provide a significant (but temporary) expansion of access to care. The governmental response to COVID-19 remains ongoing, and subsequent changes may come into effect as this unprecedented public health crisis evolves.
Virginia Alverson Mimmack leads the Healthcare practice of Texas-based Jackson Walker LLP where she advises doctors, doctor-owned entities, hospitals and healthcare start-ups. She can be reached at [email protected].
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 All'Grave Matter of Serious Consequences': Why a Missouri Judge Sanctioned a Top Kirkland & Ellis Attorney
10 minute readAG in Texas Is Nation's First to Bring Gen AI Enforcement Action in Health Care
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Steve Bannon 'We Build The Wall' Fraud Trial Pushed to February 2025
- 2'Nuclear Option'?: Eli Lilly Taps Big Law Firms in Federal Drug Pricing Dispute
- 3Questions About Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act Remain Unanswered
- 4Santa Clara County Superior Court Authorizes Electronic Recording of Proceedings
- 5Ex-Deputy AG Trusts U.S. Legal System To Pull Country Through Times of Duress
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