Report: Adoption of Telehealth Can Generate Cost Savings for Rural Communities, Hospitals | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

Report: Adoption of Telehealth Can Generate Cost Savings for Rural Communities, Hospitals

March 30, 2017
by Heather Landi
| Reprints
Click To View Gallery

The adoption of telehealth technologies in rural areas can result in significant cost savings for hospitals and their communities due to transportation cost savings, lost wages savings, hospital cost savings and increased revenues for local labs and pharmacies, according to a white paper by the NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association.

In the white paper, titled “Anticipating Economic Returns on Rural Telehealth,” Rick Schadelbauer, manager, economic research and analysis at the organization, outlines the case to be made for increasing adoption of telehealth in rural areas, and throughout the country, by keeping patients using local health care services rather than traveling to bigger, nearby cities for health care services. Schadelbauer noted that within the United States, there is a distinct health disparity between rural and non-rural Americans, primarily as a result of demographics and limited access to health care.

Telehealth and telemedicine, or the remote delivery of health care services and clinical information using telecommunications technology, holds potential to improve the quality, cost and availability of health care in rural areas. However, telemedicine is not viable without access to robust, reliable broadband service, Schadelbauer wrote. “Rural areas currently lag in broadband deployment, but continue to make impressive gains due in large part to the efforts of small telecommunications providers. Wireless applications require wireline infrastructure in order to be viable options,” he wrote.

The white paper examines the rural health care challenges, telehealth adoption and the potential benefit of telehealth technologies, both non-quantifiable and quantifiable. And the white paper drills down into challenges for rural health, such as reimbursement, cost, patient privacy and licensing.

According to the paper, the non-quantifiable benefits of telehealth are numerous: improved access to specialists, speedier treatment, the comfort of remaining close to home, eliminating the need for long-distance transportation, the ability for health care providers to sharpen their skills, and improved patient outcomes.

The white paper also quantifies several categories of quantifiable benefits of telehealth: transportation cost savings (median cost savings: $5,718 per medical facility, annually); lost wages savings ($3,431 per medical facility, annually); hospital cost savings ($20,841 per medical facility, annually); and increased revenues for local labs ($145,109 per medical facility, annually) and pharmacies ($8,558 per medical facility, annually.)

More specifically, hospitals in rural communities could potentially save more than $81,000 a year on employing doctors, and the white paper presented as one example a hospital that reduced its use of a full-time radiologist from five days a week to one. And, at the same time, hospitals could potentially generate revenue from lab work and pharmacy services that would remain local as a result of telemedicine, according to the white paper. For example, the authors estimated that tens of thousands of dollars could generated by local MRIs, CTs and other lab and pharmacy billings.

“The decision to implement telemedicine is unique to each medical facility, and should take into account not only costs but also non-quantifiable benefits and quantifiable benefits accruing to parties other than the medical facility, such as the patient and local labs and pharmacies located in the communities where telemedicine takes place,” the authors wrote.

As potentially significant as the potential benefits to telehealth—both non-quantifiable and quantifiable—may be, , Schadelbauer wrote that “it is critically important to remember that rural telehealth’s role in addressing the significant health problems inherent to rural areas will depends upon the availability of an underlying, future-proof, fiber-based broadband infrastructure. Further investment in, and expansion of, broadband infrastructure is a critical need not only for rural Americans but also our country as a whole.” Further, he noted, “Absent access to such an infrastructure, the benefits of telemedicine will remain merely theoretical.”

NTCA will use the findings to push for more fiber-based broadband in rural communities.

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/report-adoption-telehealth-can-generate-cost-savings-rural-communities
/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.  

 

 

More From Healthcare Informatics

/news-item/telehealth/telehealth-interoperability-recommendations-outlined-administration-s-health

Telehealth, Interoperability Recommendations Outlined in Administration’s Health Reform Report

December 5, 2018
by Rajiv Leventhal, Managing Editor
| Reprints

Various health IT recommendations related to telehealth and interoperability were made on the part of the Trump administration as part of its report on reforming the nation's healthcare delivery system.

The 119-page report, "Reforming America's Healthcare System Through Choice and Competition”—authored by Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Alex Azar—includes more than 50 recommendations that Congress, the administration, and states can take to improve healthcare choice and competition, including several recommendations related to telehealth services and improving the exchange of health data.

The report mostly reinforces comments that the administration has made several times before, and among the administration's telehealth suggestions included: improving license portability to create additional opportunities for telehealth practice and modifying reimbursement policies that impede telehealth coverage in federal health programs, such as Medicare's originating site requirements.  The report’s authors write, “For example, Medicare fee-for-service pays for telehealth services only when patients are located at certain types of healthcare facilities (“originating sites”) in rural areas with a shortage of health professionals. Another barrier is that states may require practitioners to have first provided services in person before caring for a patient by telehealth.”

Catherine Pugh, senior director of government affairs at Health IT now, a coalition that supports the use of data and IT to improve healthcare,  said in a statement following the release of the report, “Health IT Now endorses the recommendations in this report related to expanding telehealth services because we cannot allow this critical model of care delivery to be impeded by bureaucratic rules or geographic boundaries.” The statement continued, “We support the adoption of mutual recognition compacts among physicians—like those widely adopted in the nursing profession—to create additional opportunities for telehealth practice, as the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact is not broad enough on its own to improve license portability…”

Meanwhile, in regard to the need for greater interoperability, the report noted various barriers that exist in the market today, such as: medical complexity (a given diagnosis, treatment or procedure in medical records can be recorded in many different ways); lack of business drivers (the fee-for-service model provides little incentive to connect with other clinicians  or  service  providers  and  leads  to  significant  disconnects  across  the  care continuum); lack of accessible APIs (typically, EHR developers have either not published their APIs,  charged  prohibitively  high  fees,  or  set  onerous  contractual  conditions  to  use  their APIs); and lack of network exchange (most systems simply do not or cannot communicate with one another).

As such, the report mentioned the 21st Century Cures Act and recommended that “the administration should expeditiously implement [its] provisions to prevent information blocking, make it easier for patients anywhere to get  their  core  health  information,  support  “open  application  programming interfaces”  to  allow  patients  to  get  data  on  their  smart  phones,  and  encourage support of population-level data queries to allow payers electronic access to clinical data.”

The report further recommended that agencies such as CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) and ONC (the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT) should continue to work on ways to reduce the documentation burden that currently plagues clinicians.

What’s more, the report suggested that CMS should continue its efforts to make data available to patients through efforts such as “MyHealthEData” and Blue Button 2.0, and that “ONC should continue making standards more comprehensive and robust.”

Related Insights For: Telehealth

/news-item/telehealth/study-physicians-use-telemedicine-still-exception-not-rule

Study: Physicians’ Use of Telemedicine Still the Exception, not the Rule

December 4, 2018
by Rajiv Leventhal, Managing Editor
| Reprints
Click To View Gallery

In 2016, 15 percent of physicians worked in practices that used telemedicine for patient interactions, such as diagnosing or treating patients, following up with patients, or managing patients with chronic conditions, according to an AMA (American Medical Association) study on telemedicine.

The research, published in the December issue of Health Affairs, which covers telemedicine trends in an array of different ways, gauges the emergence of telemedicine and its integration into healthcare delivery.

Regarding the overall use of telemedicine, the findings showed that 15 percent of physicians worked in practices that used telemedicine for patient interactions, such as diagnosing or treating patients, following up with patients, or managing patients with chronic conditions. Meanwhile, 11 percent of physicians worked in practices that used telemedicine for interactions with healthcare professionals, such as having a specialty consultation, or getting a second opinion.

When it comes to telemedicine use by specialty, radiologists (40 percent), psychiatrists (29 percent), and cardiologists (24 percent) had the highest use of telemedicine for patient interactions. In other specialties, the use of telemedicine for patient interactions ranged from 6 percent to 23 percent, according to the research.

Emergency medicine physicians (39 percent), pathologists (30 percent), and radiologists (26 percent) had the highest use of telemedicine for interactions with healthcare professionals. In other specialties, the use of telemedicine for interactions with healthcare professionals ranged from 3 percent to 15 percent.

What’s more, videoconferencing was the telemedicine modality with the most widespread use, as it was used in the practices of 13 percent of physicians. Use of videoconferencing was most common among emergency medicine physicians, psychiatrists and pathologists. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) was used in the practices of 7 percent of physicians.

Breaking it down further by practice size, physicians in smaller medical practices and physician-owned medical practices had a lower rate of telemedicine use than physicians in larger medical practices and ones that were not physician-owned. The findings suggest the financial burden of implementing telemedicine may be a continuing barrier, especially for that segment of practices, researchers said.

The researchers concluded, “Our work suggests that despite regulatory and legislative changes designed to encourage the use of telemedicine, the financial burden of implementing it may be a continuing barrier, especially for small practices. Even after we controlled for specialty differences, we found that physicians in larger practices and ones that were not physician owned were more likely to report that their practices used telemedicine for interactions with both patients and healthcare professionals.”

See more on Telehealth

betebet sohbet hattı betebet bahis siteleringsbahis