HHS Delivers Telehealth Progress Report to Congress | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

HHS Delivers Telehealth Progress Report to Congress

August 22, 2016
by Rajiv Leventhal
| Reprints

Following up on a Congressional request, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a report providing an update on the department’s current telehealth efforts, largely focusing on how delivery system reform initiatives may increase its use.

The report, from HHS’ Office of Health Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), kicked off by noting that telehealth holds promise as a means of increasing access to care and improving health outcomes.  “Some analysts also see the potential for telehealth to reduce costs,” the report stated. It estimated that 61 percent of healthcare institutions currently use some form of telehealth, and between 40 and 50 percent of all hospitals in the U.S. currently employ some form of telehealth—a figure that includes rural/critical access hospitals, academic medical centers, and urban institutions. 

The report referenced a meeting earlier this year, sponsored by the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC), and inclusive of various healthcare stakeholders, that resulted in participants coming to several key conclusions regarding telehealth policy: payment reform is critical, especially more comprehensive coverage by Medicare; state licensure barriers continue to temper enthusiasm about telehealth among healthcare providers; and that high-speed broadband connections still do not reach many rural hospitals and clinics, despite significant growth in fiber-optic infrastructure nationally.

Concerning payment reform, the report discussed how the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) legislation includes telehealth provisions. One of the provisions identifies “the use of remote monitoring or telehealth” as an example of an activity that would fall under a care coordination subcategory of the Clinical Practice Improvement Activities performance category under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), a new program for assessing physicians’ and other practitioners’ performance and adjusting payments. In essence, the MACRA provision offers a possible “reward” to physicians and other practitioners who coordinate care using telehealth modalities, even when direct reimbursement for such activity may not be available.  Also under MACRA, eligible providers participating in a qualifying Alternative Payment Model (APM) will have the capacity to provide a broad array of services at a distance using many different telehealth modalities irrespective of where the patient or the clinician is physically located.

Regarding reimbursement, the report noted that, “The payment environment for telehealth services is evolving across the public and private sector with a considerable amount of variability from one payer to another. Coverage of telehealth services has been uneven across payers due in part to uncertainty regarding the value of telehealth and program integrity concerns regarding duplication of services.”

Similarly, each individual state has independent authority to regulate and oversee the practice of medicine within its boundaries. As such, the report stated, “these state licensure requirements may be inhibiting broader use of telehealth, with as many as 4 out of 5 states requiring out-of-state clinicians providing telehealth services to be licensed in the state where the patient resides.”

Further discussing challenges, the HHS report revealed that some parts of the country, particularly rural areas, still lack access to broadband speeds that may be required for advanced telehealth applications. According to the report, “Broadband access is still severely underdeveloped on many Indian reservations. At the White House Convening on Rural Telehealth, tribal leaders explained with great frustration that telecommunications companies often build broadband access right up to the border of a reservation and stop.  It may be insufficient funding or the administrative burden of obtaining right-of-way permits that keeps telecommunications companies from investing in the broadband infrastructure needed to bring telehealth to tribal lands.”

Regarding federal telehealth activity, HHS’ largest telehealth investments are in the form of payments for healthcare services through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Indian Health Service (IHS), according to the report. Over the last several years, the majority of work by the federal government on telehealth has been monitored by an interagency task force established by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP). Indeed, the Federal Telemedicine Working Group (FedTel) was established in April 2011 to help discuss and reduce organizational silos, facilitate telehealth education and information sharing amongst members, and summarize key telehealth activities of the participants. This workgroup convenes every other month via conference call and semi-annually face-to-face. HRSA’s primary responsibility within FedTel is to internally share funding opportunities and announcements for telehealth research and planning activities throughout the federal government, according to the report.

The report also stated how ONC is “developing a first-of-its-kind inventory of federal telehealth activities.” ONC distributed a questionnaire to federal agency participants in June that seeks to ascertain ways in which telehealth activities are supported by different agencies government-wide, to eliminate duplication of effort, and to identify programmatic synergies and complementary efforts. The survey will also shed light on the ways in which different agencies and offices are planning to foster specific kinds of telehealth services, such as remote monitoring or store and forward technologies. More updates from this project are expected this fall.

The report also gave an update to telehealth efforts within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), since the VA is currently the largest provider of telehealth services in the country. In Fiscal Year 2014, the VA reported 2.1 million telehealth encounters, with nearly 45 percent of these “visits” involving veterans living in rural areas of the country. The VA’s telehealth programs currently provide access to 44 different clinical specialties, such as psychiatry, radiology, endocrinology, and neurology.

What’s more, HHS has sent a legislative proposal related to telehealth that illustrates its coordination as part of the President’s budget request for FY 2017. To this end, the report said, “Currently, the Medicare fee-for-service program covers telehealth services for a defined list of just under one hundred treatments, and requires services be delivered via video-link to beneficiaries living in rural areas.  The  Department’s proposal would encourage wider appropriate delivery of telehealth services by expanding the ability of Medicare Advantage organizations to deliver certain medical services, at the Secretary’s discretion, via telehealth by eliminating otherwise applicable Part B requirements that certain covered services be provided exclusively through face-to-face encounters.”

The Health IT Summits gather 250+ healthcare leaders in cities across the U.S. to present important new insights, collaborate on ideas, and to have a little fun - Find a Summit Near You!


/news-item/telemedicine/hhs-delivers-telehealth-progress-report-congress
/news-item/telehealth/klas-ehr-integration-enterprise-scalability-key-challenges-facing-telehealth

KLAS: EHR Integration, Enterprise Scalability Key Challenges Facing Telehealth Vendors

December 11, 2018
by Heather Landi, Associate Editor
| Reprints
Click To View Gallery

Healthcare organizations report high satisfaction with their telehealth virtual care platforms (VCPs), however there are significant differences in how broad the various platforms are and in the quality of the vendors’ service. What’s more, integration with electronic health record (EHR) systems is a key challenge facing every telehealth vendor, according to a KLAS report.

In its report, “Telehealth Virtual Care Platforms 2019: Which Telehealth Vendors Have the Scalability Customers Need?,” KLAS evaluates some of the top telehealth companies including American Well, MDLive and Epic, and analyzes what capabilities will set vendors apart as more healthcare organizations adopt virtual health technology solutions.

Most virtual care platform vendors receive positive performance ratings, but the depth and breadth of their capabilities vary, and this can impact scalability for organizations looking to grow, according to KLAS. No two vendors are alike in their capabilities, offering different combinations of functionality and experience.

Of the companies KLAS evaluated, the most common type of visit varied—most of American Well’s visits were on-demand urgent care, while the majority of Epic’s visits were associated with virtual clinic visits.

A key factor of scalability is the ability to support multiple visit types, KLAS researchers note. While multiple vendors offer support for all three visit types (on-demand or urgent care, virtual clinic visits and telespecialty consultations) no single vendor has a large proportion of customers using all three (only 12 respondents across all vendors said they were doing so).

American Well, a market share and mindshare leader, and MDLIVE, two of the vendors used most frequently for multiple visit types, receive generally positive—but lower than average—performance scores. Vendors more specialized in specific visit types or component layers (e.g., Vidyo and Zipnosis) have high scores but narrower expectations from customers.

No one vendor meets all needs equally well, but several are reaching for “all-purpose” status with internal development and/or recent acquisitions (American Well acquired Avizia; InTouch acquired TruClinic), according to the report.

KLAS’ analysis also uncovered a general trend of poor integration. In most cases, the addition of a virtual care platform also means the introduction of a second EHR into the clinician workflow.

“Although integration between EMRs is generally understood to be important for care quality, patient safety, efficiency, and productivity, few interviewed VCP customers have full bidirectional transfer in place. Most say that they are too early in their virtual care programs to pursue integration or that it simply costs too much,” KLAS researchers wrote.

Only American Well, Epic, and MDLIVE have more than half of interviewed customers currently on an integrated path, KLAS found. Epic has placed virtual care capabilities directly into their top-rated MyChart patient portal, which many patients already use. Epic integration means clinicians are able to stay within their existing workflow environment as well.

Many provider organizations are in the early phases of their virtual care programs where showing an ROI is an important milestone and one that organizations want to achieve as soon as possible, KLAS notes. “A key promise from vendors is that their technology and accumulated expertise will result in a fast start and continuous acceleration. When this comes at significant cost or progress is slower than expected, provider organizations can experience disappointment,” the KLAS researchers wrote.

When it comes to getting their money’s worth and achieving desired outcomes, Epic and InTouch are rated highest among fully rated vendors, and swyMed and Vidyo perform well among their smaller groups of respondents, KLAS researchers note.

“For each vendor, the current value proposition is somewhat narrow but well understood: Epic’s use is limited to existing patients of Epic EMR customers; InTouch is used primarily for consults; swyMed is used by respondents primarily for mobile, first responder needs; Vidyo delivers video-conferencing tools,

which are typically combined with other VCP solutions. SnapMD is seen as a low-cost option, but some customers say the impact has been limited. Commentary from VSee customers suggests a similar experience,” KLAS researchers wrote in the report.

Many healthcare organizations are early on in their virtual care journeys, and their ability to achieve desired results depends on guidance from vendors. According to KLAS’ analysis, swyMed and InTouch receive the most praise for taking initiative in proactively guiding customers and also in quickly responding to support problems.

While respondents praise American Well’s platform scalability, some customers blame the vendor’s “exponentialgrowth for staffing shortages that have led to implementation holdups and backlogged service requests. Some SnapMD customers say hard-to-beat pricing comes with a support model that is spare in terms of providing tailored guidance, according to the KLAS report.

Most vendors offer two additional options that can help accelerate customers’ expansion and growth—supplemental services, including added-cost advisory and outsourced services, and tools that automate patient-facing tasks that traditionally require additional staff. I

KLAS found that few customers mentioned these options in top-of-mind conversations. “Respondents who spoke of their vendor’s supplemental services most often referred to marketing support or strategic planning services from vendors American Well, MDLIVE, or Zipnosis. Those who referred to task automation report patient-self-service capabilities around check-in, scheduling, surveys, and/or patient flow from InTouch Health (TruClinic), Epic, MDLIVE, or Zipnosis,” the KLAS researchers wrote.

 

 

More From Healthcare Informatics

/news-item/telehealth/study-neonatal-telehealth-reduces-hospital-transfers-saves-money

Study: Neonatal Telehealth Reduces Hospital Transfers, Saves Money

December 11, 2018
by Heather Landi, Associate Editor
| Reprints

Neonatal video-assisted resuscitation reduces transfers from hospitals without newborn intensive care units and provides significant cost savings, according to study published in the November issue of Health Affairs.

The study authors, led by Jordan Albritton of Intermountain Healthcare, examined a newborn telehealth program implemented at eight Intermountain Healthcare community hospitals in November 2014–December 2015 and the impact on the transfer of newborns from those eight hospitals to level 3 newborn intensive care units.

Studies show that 10 percent of newborns require assistance breathing at birth, and 1 percent require extensive resuscitation. At Intermountain Healthcare, approximately 1–2 percent of all babies born in suburban and rural hospitals are transferred to newborn intensive care units (NICUs) for higher-level care, according to the study.

In response to the need to improve outcomes for complex newborn patients, an innovative telehealth program was established at Intermountain Healthcare in 2013 to provide synchronous, video-assisted resuscitation (VAR), bringing a neonatologist to the bedside. As a result, access to specialized neonatal services in rural and suburban settings is no longer limited to telephone calls or the arrival of a neonatal transport team, the study authors wrote.

While telehealth can facilitate video connections between neonatologists at tertiary care centers and providers at smaller hospitals, there is little empirical evidence about the benefits of telehealth programs for neonatal resuscitation, according to the study authors.

Although Intermountain Healthcare began using telehealth technologies in 2013, the current VAR program was implemented in the period November 2014–December 2015. Today, neonatologists from four level 3 NICUs provide VAR support for nineteen referring hospitals.

As part of the study, the researchers evaluated eight hospitals that contained either well-baby (level 1) or special care (level 2) nurseries staffed by physicians, advanced practice clinicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and other health care professionals. T

The study found that video-assisted resuscitation was associated with a reduction of 0.70 transfers per facility-month and a 29.4 percent reduction in a newborn’s odds of being transferred. Annually, this resulted in 67.2 fewer transfers and an estimated cost savings of $1.2 million per year.

The study authors conclude that reducing transfers keeps families closer to home, increases community hospital revenue, and reduces risk associated with transfers.

“This program helps keep newborns in level 1 or 2 nurseries, which in turn allows families to stay closer to home, improves social support, and increases the revenue of community hospitals while reducing costs and risks associated with transfers,” the study authors wrote. “Payers should consider reimbursement for pediatric subspecialty telehealth consults for neonates in level 1 and 2 nurseries. Through improvements in care quality and cost savings, this service would likely pay for itself many times over.

However, the authors also note that lack of reimbursement for telehealth services limits widespread implementation.

“Policy changes are necessary to align payment incentives and promote the use of telehealth services,” the study authors wrote.

Related Insights For: Telehealth

/blogs/david-raths/telehealth/can-telehealth-slow-traffic-between-nursing-homes-emergency-departments

Can Telehealth Slow the Traffic Between Nursing Homes, Emergency Departments?

December 6, 2018
| Reprints
The RUSH Act seeks to reduce the 1.3 million transfers from skilled nursing facilities to emergency rooms each year

There are 1.3 million transfers from skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) to emergency rooms each year, and CMS estimates that two-thirds of those are avoidable. The result is as much as $40 billion in unnecessary spending. Could telehealth be part of the solution?

That question led Timothy Peck, M.D., formerly chief resident in the Emergency Department at Beth Israel Deaconess/Harvard, to co-found a startup company, Call9, and become an advocate for legislation, the RUSH (Reducing Unnecessary Senior Hospitalizations) Act of 2018, to support reimbursement for connecting emergency physicians and SNFs.

Peck has spent considerable time studying the issue. “I didn’t know much about nursing homes when I started,” he said.  “I went and lived in one for three months. I wound up sleeping on a cot in a conference room.”

Peck was trying to understand nursing home finances and operations and why the patients are being transferred. They usually have things like urinary tract infections or pneumonia, which could be treated in the outpatient setting, but the SNFs aren’t equipped with the right tools to be able to treat these patients. Those patients come in without their families and 43 percent have dementia, he said. “Most become delirious upon transfer. We don’t have much information about them so we order every test under the rainbow, driving up the bill unnecessarily. We put them in hallways. They get bedsores. We inevitably admit these patients for an average of $15,000 to $20,000 per admission.”

The two-thirds of transfers that are avoidable represent about $40 billion in unnecessary spending for something that harms patients,” he said. “We are spending money on hurting patients.”

Peck zeroed in on three operational issues:

• First, on average, nurse to patient ratios in nursing homes are 1 to 36. If one patient becomes acutely ill and spikes a fever, that nurse does not have time to take care of that patient when they have 35 other patients to take care of. Also, most nursing home nurses are trained to handle chronic care, not emergency or acute care. It is a mismatch of skills, not a people problem in any way, he said.  

• Second, diagnostic equipment is sparse, and EKGs and lab tests take 24 hours to 48 hours to come back. That doesn’t work well for acute care.

• Third, physicians are not present in nursing homes. “When I was living in that nursing home and walking the halls weekends and nights, I never once saw another physician. Long-term care patients are seen once a month by their primary care doctors.”

Peck described the Call9 service: They embed 24x7 a paramedic or EMT or a nurse with emergency experience in the SNF. They go to the patient’s bedside and connect to a remote emergency physician who is available 24x7 and working from home. They can see a patient in nursing home A with a paramedic by the bedside and then jump to nursing home B and see a patient there with a first responder with them. “It makes the physician a scalable resource,” Peck said. “Believe it or not, they are our least expensive resource because they get scaled.”

Call9 has full integration with the three most commonly used EHRs in the SNF world. The solution also deploys a suite of mobile diagnostics and can return lab test results in a few minutes. It offers real-time telemetry and real-time ultrasound.

After treating a few thousand Medicare Advantage patients, he said the model has shown that it can save payers more than $8 million per nursing home per year. That allowed Call9 to get involved with Medicare shared savings value-based contracts with several payers nationally. But he notes that 60 percent of patients in nursing homes are Medicare patients. “We took that data to CMS and showed it to them,” Peck said. “The Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives got ahold of the data and got excited and started writing the Rush Act.”  He stressed that Call9 is not the only organization creating a program like this. There are others working on similar solutions.

Peck said CMS is interested in using telehealth in this way, he said. “But they don’t have any way to change payment mechanisms in a quick manner. They would have to ask CMMI to run demos, which takes years. But Congress could pass new legislation.” He described the RUSH Act as creating a value-based shared savings arrangement with Medicare where 50 percent of the savings goes back to Medicare, and 37.5 percent goes to a company like Call9 or a physician group or medical staffing group that administers the program and 12.5 percent goes to the nursing home, aligning all stakeholders, he said. “The bill has been introduced by a bipartisan group, because it is a nonpartisan issue.” With time running out in this session, he said, the bill still has strong support among Democrats set to take over House leadership in 2019.

Besides bipartisan sponsors in Congress, the bill also has support from patient advocacy groups such as the Alzheimer’s Association, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, American Heart Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and the American Telemedicine Association. “They are saying that the patients need it; the taxpayers benefit; why are we not doing this?” Peck said.

As someone who has seen family members and friends make that repeated, disruptive round trip from nursing home to emergency room, I concur.  

 

 

See more on Telehealth

betebet sohbet hattı betebet bahis siteleringsbahis