A new report analyzed each state’s current telehealth policies, rating each state’s ease of access to and delivery of telehealth, finding that many of the states hardest hit by the outbreak have the strictest telehealth laws.
These states include New York, California and Connecticut, which do not allow interstate licensing deeds. In addition, the report found that they have “underwriting parity mandates that provide no flexibility between insurers and providers”. Arizona, Florida and Indiana are the only three states that allow all providers to practice telehealth across state lines.
The Reason Foundation, the Cicero Institute and the Pioneer Institute, published the report, which analyzed each state’s current telehealth policies, rating each state’s patient access and ease of providing telehealth. The report’s goal is to provide policymakers with a roadmap for advancing legislation to increase access to quality health care for all.
During the peak of the 2020 pandemic, several states lifted some restrictions previously imposed on health care, such as requiring patients to see providers in person before using telehealth, or not allowing patients to work with providers out of state. However, with the end of the executive order and temporary waivers, some of the requirements are now again limiting telehealth services and providing additional hurdles that weren’t there a year ago.
“Now that these regulatory moratoriums are starting to expire, lawmakers in many states are seeking permanent reforms,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation, said in an email. “This report outlines best practices for telehealth policies to maximize patient choice and provider flexibility.”
The report scores each state’s policies on eight criteria: no in-person requirement, form neutral, no Obstacles span sStatus line telehealth, telehealth, independent practice, no-coverage mandate, no-pay mandate, and covenants are available to all providers.
The report suggests that in some cases, no face-to-face requirements can prove beneficial. For example, in rural areas where in-person visits have proven challenging and for low-income patients who cannot afford multiple visits, requiring in-person visits may prove both overly burdensome and redundant if telemedicine adequately addresses the issue. of. According to the report, many states with the exception of Tennessee retained this no-in-person requirement when they reinstated restrictions.
Additionally, the report advocates form-neutral telemedicine. Specifically, states rated states higher if their policies allowed multiple means of delivering telehealth, including video appointments, remote patient monitoring technology and store-and-forward options, such as forwarding photos of skin problems to providers.
The third criterion the report rated was states that allowed providers to see patients across state lines. It’s worth noting that most states currently score poorly in this category. The report advocates removing such barriers for a variety of reasons, from some areas without local experts to the need for a second opinion.
Additionally, the report assessed whether states allow all reputable providers to use telehealth for their patients.For example, some only allow doctors to provide telemedicine, while others allow access Nutritionists, endocrinologists, etc.
The fifth category, independent practice, rated states higher if nurse practitioners were allowed to perform telehealth services without physician supervision. They say allowing nurses to practice in this way could increase access to care for more patients due to a shortage of doctors.
In addition, the report would rank states higher if all telehealth services were not required to be covered by insurance. Some services cannot be delivered as successfully as in-person via telehealth, the report said, and in such cases, the report recommends not being covered.
The following categories are also related to cost: No Payment Authorization. In short, such rate status is more favorable if telehealth is billed differently than in-person meetings. The report argues that telehealth can save money and shouldn’t charge the same “facilities” as in-person appointments.
Finally, reports rate states in green instead of red if they allow providers to participate in compacts, which allows providers to serve patients in multiple states.
“Telemedicine has the potential to provide convenient, affordable and timely care to historically underserved patients,” Nastasi said. “However, government-imposed barriers may prevent patients from accessing skilled care unless they can overcome the burden and cost of traveling to another state.”
The new legislation moving forward will reveal what parts of the lifting of restrictions states plan to continue in place after the pandemic and finalize the scope of telehealth.
Photo: ronnachaipark, Getty Images
