Health Insurers Are Starting To Roll Back Coverage for Telehealth, Even Though Demand Is Way Up
By Jennifer A. Mallow and Steve Davis
In less than a year, telehealth has gone from a niche rarity to a common practice. Its ability to ensure physical distance, preserve personal protective equipment and prevent the spread of infection among health care workers and patients has been invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As health care specialists and researchers, we have long seen the potential of telehealth, providing health care remotely with technology, which has been around for several decades. Despite evidence it could safely treat and manage a range of health conditions in a cost-effective manner, widespread adoption of the practice had been limited by issues including insurance coverage, restrictions on prescribing and technology access.
On March 27, 2020, The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, removed many of the barriers to widespread telehealth use. Soon after, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid released a toolkit encouraging state Medicaid agencies to adopt CARES policy changes to promote the expansion of telehealth. Many private insurers followed suit. Collectively, these policy changes facilitated the explosion of telehealth. Now, due to the financial strain on health care systems and insurers, the increase in telehealth use may be forced to shrink even though the public health crisis remains.
At the very beginning of the pandemic, the use of telehealth went from 13,000 to 1.7 million visits per week among Medicare recipients. Between mid-March and mid-June 2020, during the height of the national lockdown, over 9 million telehealth visits were conducted for Medicare recipients. Private insurers, who mimicked the CARES Act policy changes, also reported exponential increases – with telehealth claims increasing over 4,000% from the previous year.
Telehealth is typically used for new health concerns like a sore throat, psychotherapy and in-home monitoring with mobile devices for chronic conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure or heart failure. Telehealth is convenient because it can be done from anywhere and more frequently than in-person visits.
The changes triggered by the CARES Act were intended to last only until the public health emergency was considered over. Making telehealth coverage expansions permanent could lead people to use their insurance coverage more often by making care more convenient, thus costing private insurance companies more money.
Provider compensation is traditionally based on the amount of time spent with the patient and how complicated and risky the exam and procedures are to perform. Historically, telehealth was reimbursed at a lower rate than in-person care. The CARES Act had addressed this payment disparity by mandating the same rate for telehealth visits as in-person visits for those insured by Medicare, with more than 80 new telehealth services being reimbursed at the same rate as in-person services.
Many private insurers followed suit and paid providers who conducted telehealth visits at the same rate as office visits. Now, that's all changing due to financial loss by insurance companies. As of Oct. 1, telehealth visits are not always paid at the same rate as in-person visits by these private insures.
Several big private insurers are pulling back some of their coverage of telehealth for non-COVID issues. Companies including UnitedHealthcare have already rolled back policies that waived co-pays and other fees for non-COVID-related appointments. Other plans such as Anthem BlueCross BlueShield have extended their coverage through the end of the year, but only the first two sessions are free for the consumer.
Further complicating matters is that every private insurance plan and many state-funded Medicaid plans have different sets of rules and dates for what telehealth treatments they cover. This means some patients are paying more. Costs are getting confusing. Patients may end up with a surprise bill – or they may delay care due to cost.
A System Under Pressure
Health care providers and hospital systems are also in limbo. They don't know whether they'll lose telehealth payments when the federal public health emergency for the pandemic lapses or what to expect from private health insurance companies.
Hospitals and health systems have had to meet unprecedented challenges in 2020 – increasing testing, treating infected patients, expanding intensive care unit capacity, safeguarding staff and non-COVID-19 patients, procuring personal protective equipment and canceling nonemergency procedures. These challenges have created historic financial pressures for health care offices and hospitals. The American Hospital Association estimates that the country's health care systems are losing an average of $50.7 billion per month.
This financial crisis puts telehealth in jeopardy. Providers and health systems still have to pay salaries and purchase expensive technological equipment, making it difficult to accept a reduced rate for telehealth visits. Without payment parity, in the current financial crisis, health care systems will not be able to continue to offer telehealth services.
A continued increase in COVID-19 cases is expected this fall, just as insurance providers are starting to diminish coverage for telehealth visits.
Our team – and teams across every state – will undertake rigorous evaluation of each of the CARES Act policy changes (and similar Medicaid and private insurer changes) and their impact. These evaluations will provide information on how telehealth affects cost and cost effectiveness in the future.
Clearly, telehealth is in jeopardy now as patients are paying more, health care practices are receiving less and the risk of infections increases. While the diminished risk of infection through the use of telehealth seems positive, it is clear to us that insurers are trying to drive patients back to the in-person care model. How will vulnerable populations and the fragile health care system respond? Will patients and providers still have a choice in how they receive and provide care, or will we lose the innovation gained during this period?
Jennifer A. Mallow is an associate professor of nursing at West Virginia University.
Steve Davis is an associate professor of health policy, management and leadership at West Virginia University.
Disclosures: Jennifer A. Mallow receives funding from the US DHHS-Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services & National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Steve Davis receives funding from the WV DHHR-Bureau for Medical Services & the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.
- Is Now the Right Time to Get Your Annual Physical or Dental ... ›
- Is Telehealth as Good as In-Person Care? - EcoWatch ›
- Online Therapy Is Showing How to Expand Mental Health Services ... ›
New fossils uncovered in Argentina may belong to one of the largest animals to have walked on Earth.
- Groundbreaking Fossil Shows Prehistoric 15-Foot Reptile Tried to ... ›
- Skull of Smallest Known Dinosaur Found in 99-Million-Year Old Amber ›
- Giant 'Toothed' Birds Flew Over Antarctica 40 Million Years Ago ... ›
- World's Second-Largest Egg Found in Antarctica Probably Hatched ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
- Pruitt Guts the Clean Power Plan: How Weak Will the New EPA ... ›
- It's Official: Trump Administration to Repeal Clean Power Plan ... ›
- 'Deadly' Clean Power Plan Replacement ›
By Jonathan Runstadler and Kaitlin Sawatzki
Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have found coronavirus infections in pet cats and dogs and in multiple zoo animals, including big cats and gorillas. These infections have even happened when staff were using personal protective equipment.
- Gorillas in San Diego Test Positive for Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
- Wildlife Rehabilitators Are Overwhelmed During the Pandemic. In ... ›
- Coronavirus Pandemic Linked to Destruction of Wildlife and World's ... ›
- Utah Mink Becomes First Wild Animal to Test Positive for Coronavirus ›
By Peter Giger
The speed and scale of the response to COVID-19 by governments, businesses and individuals seems to provide hope that we can react to the climate change crisis in a similarly decisive manner - but history tells us that humans do not react to slow-moving and distant threats.
A Game of Jenga<p>Think of it as a game of Jenga and the planet's climate system as the tower. For generations, we have been slowly removing blocks. But at some point, we will remove a pivotal block, such as the collapse of one of the major global ocean circulation systems, for example the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), that will cause all or part of the global climate system to fall into a planetary emergency.</p><p>But worse still, it could cause runaway damage: Where the tipping points form a domino-like cascade, where breaching one triggers breaches of others, creating an unstoppable shift to a radically and swiftly changing climate.</p><p>One of the most concerning tipping points is mass methane release. Methane can be found in deep freeze storage within permafrost and at the bottom of the deepest oceans in the form of methane hydrates. But rising sea and air temperatures are beginning to thaw these stores of methane.</p><p>This would release a powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, 30-times more potent than carbon dioxide as a global warming agent. This would drastically increase temperatures and rush us towards the breach of other tipping points.</p><p>This could include the acceleration of ice thaw on all three of the globe's large, land-based ice sheets – Greenland, West Antarctica and the Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica. The potential collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet is seen as a key tipping point, as its loss could eventually <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5929/901" target="_blank">raise global sea levels by 3.3 meters</a> with important regional variations.</p><p>More than that, we would be on the irreversible path to full land-ice melt, causing sea levels to rise by up to 30 meters, roughly at the rate of two meters per century, or maybe faster. Just look at the raised beaches around the world, at the last high stand of global sea level, at the end of the Pleistocene period around 120,0000 years ago, to see the evidence of such a warm world, which was just 2°C warmer than the present day.</p>
Cutting Off Circulation<p>As well as devastating low-lying and coastal areas around the world, melting polar ice could set off another tipping point: a disablement to the AMOC.</p><p>This circulation system drives a northward flow of warm, salty water on the upper layers of the ocean from the tropics to the northeast Atlantic region, and a southward flow of cold water deep in the ocean.</p><p>The ocean conveyor belt has a major effect on the climate, seasonal cycles and temperature in western and northern Europe. It means the region is warmer than other areas of similar latitude.</p><p>But melting ice from the Greenland ice sheet could threaten the AMOC system. It would dilute the salty sea water in the north Atlantic, making the water lighter and less able or unable to sink. This would slow the engine that drives this ocean circulation.</p><p><a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlantic-conveyor-belt-has-slowed-15-per-cent-since-mid-twentieth-century" target="_blank">Recent research</a> suggests the AMOC has already weakened by around 15% since the middle of the 20th century. If this continues, it could have a major impact on the climate of the northern hemisphere, but particularly Europe. It may even lead to the <a href="https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/39731?show=full" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cessation of arable farming</a> in the UK, for instance.</p><p>It may also reduce rainfall over the Amazon basin, impact the monsoon systems in Asia and, by bringing warm waters into the Southern Ocean, further destabilize ice in Antarctica and accelerate global sea level rise.</p>
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation has a major effect on the climate. Praetorius (2018)
Is it Time to Declare a Climate Emergency?<p>At what stage, and at what rise in global temperatures, will these tipping points be reached? No one is entirely sure. It may take centuries, millennia or it could be imminent.</p><p>But as COVID-19 taught us, we need to prepare for the expected. We were aware of the risk of a pandemic. We also knew that we were not sufficiently prepared. But we didn't act in a meaningful manner. Thankfully, we have been able to fast-track the production of vaccines to combat COVID-19. But there is no vaccine for climate change once we have passed these tipping points.</p><p><a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021" target="_blank">We need to act now on our climate</a>. Act like these tipping points are imminent. And stop thinking of climate change as a slow-moving, long-term threat that enables us to kick the problem down the road and let future generations deal with it. We must take immediate action to reduce global warming and fulfill our commitments to the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Paris Agreement</a>, and build resilience with these tipping points in mind.</p><p>We need to plan now to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, but we also need to plan for the impacts, such as the ability to feed everyone on the planet, develop plans to manage flood risk, as well as manage the social and geopolitical impacts of human migrations that will be a consequence of fight or flight decisions.</p><p>Breaching these tipping points would be cataclysmic and potentially far more devastating than COVID-19. Some may not enjoy hearing these messages, or consider them to be in the realm of science fiction. But if it injects a sense of urgency to make us respond to climate change like we have done to the pandemic, then we must talk more about what has happened before and will happen again.</p><p>Otherwise we will continue playing Jenga with our planet. And ultimately, there will only be one loser – us.</p>
By John R. Platt
The period of the 45th presidency will go down as dark days for the United States — not just for the violent insurgency and impeachment that capped off Donald Trump's four years in office, but for every regressive action that came before.
- Biden Announces $2 Trillion Climate and Green Recovery Plan ... ›
- How Biden and Kerry Can Rebuild America's Climate Leadership ... ›
- Biden's EPA Pick Michael Regan Urged to Address Environmental ... ›
- How Joe Biden's Climate Plan Compares to the Green New Deal ... ›