Sen. Brian Schatz was championing telehealth before the Covid-19 pandemic made it commonplace.
As this Congress winds down, the Hawaii Democrat is pressing colleagues to take up legislation to extend the Health and Human Services Department’s pandemic rules that allow Medicare beneficiaries to more easily have virtual appointments with their doctors. His CONNECT for Health Act to bolster telehealth access has the backing of more than 60 senators, but it’s up to party leaders whether to bring it, or another bill, up for a vote.
The House passed legislation by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) with similar goals in July.
Schatz is worried the nonpartisan analysts at the Congressional Budget Office could make reaching a deal more difficult than it needs to be.
Schatz has promoted telehealth access since the Obama administration to reduce costs and help patients more easily access care, particularly in rural areas.
Ben talked with Schatz about how the legislative process could play out. The interview is edited for length and clarity.
What do you expect from telehealth legislation from this Congress?
We will be able to extend the authorities that were utilized in the context of the pandemic.
Whether we can extend that permanently or not remains to be seen. But there’s less and less resistance to enabling Medicare to reimburse for telehealth services and open the aperture around what kinds of telehealth are permissible.
Why are lawmakers more receptive?
There was a parade of horrible things that was invoked among people resistant to telehealth on both the fiscal and quality of care sides. Now we have many years of real-life data to show telehealth saves money, utilization does not go up and it increases the quality of care.
Democrats tend to like it because it increases the availability of care and Republicans like it because it saves money.
What is the biggest challenge for telehealth legislation moving forward?
The Congressional Budget Office.
I’m not trying to blame the professionals there, but they’re simply not permitted to book likely future savings. In their analysis, they can only load into their cost projections any possible increased expenditure.
There’s no evidence at all in the real world that telehealth costs more money, but the idiosyncrasies of CBO scores sometimes make it seem like it’s an expensive proposition.
How have you seen the telehealth policy conversation evolve over the years?
Before the pandemic, telehealth was seen by many as a possibility for the future.
But everything has changed. It’s now not just the future of health care, it’s what we’re doing now.
I had to spend a lot of time explaining what telehealth was when I first got to the Senate 10 years ago. My colleagues’ eyes would glaze over or stare off into the distance. Since then, I can have a two-sentence conversation, and they become a co-sponsor of our legislation.
Ten years ago, if you told someone that they were to interact with their doctor through their phone, they’d consider that bad service. Now if you can’t interact with your doctor through your phone, people get frustrated.
The thing that worries me the most is that some of the new innovations could expire, and we could go back to the Stone Age.
Where do you see telehealth fitting into the future of health care?
Telehealth is the future of health care.
It’s a fact that in-person visits will never be totally replaced. But we can protect the medically fragile from having to mobilize to get to the doctor’s office. People can access mental health services without the stigma of going into the psychologist or psychiatrist’s office, and money and time can be saved.
This is the one space in health care that is totally bipartisan and has zero downside.
OUR FORECAST: Extensions of telehealth rules could come during the lame duck session after the election if senators tuck them into must-pass government spending legislation.
But there is time. The rules for Medicare beneficiaries don’t expire until five months after HHS ends the Covid-19 public health emergency. That’s scheduled to end in January — though HHS could extend it — so the telehealth rules won’t end until June at the earliest.
This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care.
A 94-year-old woman is giving a new meaning to the blue bird … and no, it doesn’t have anything to do with Twitter. Rita Melone created a playful, animatronic bird that sits on walkers that elderly adults use and provides companionship … and a reminder to use a walker to avoid falls.
Today on our Pulse Check podcast, Erin Banco talks with Ben Leonard about the Biden administration’s new national security memo on biodefense and pandemic preparedness. Plus, Micky Tripathi, the national coordinator for Health IT, speaks about HHS’ deadline this month requiring health care organizations to share all electronic health care data.
Share news, tips and feedback with Ben Leonard at [email protected]Ruth Reader at [email protected]Carmen Paun at [email protected] or Grace Scullion at [email protected]
Send tips securely through SecureDrop, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp.
Medical care that was avoided in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic may never be made up, a new study has found.
Patients skipped tens of millions of visits in the second quarter of 2020, according to the report by health data company Trilliant, and haven’t made them up despite an increase in visits since.
More than two in five American adults delayed health care appointments by the end of June 2020 as the pandemic took hold, according to data published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
- Older patients at high risk of delayed or missed care had increased death rates in 2020, according to one study.
- The CDC has reported data suggesting childhood immunizations dropped 14 percent in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019, with measles vaccinations down 20 percent.
Another take: Zocdoc, a New York City firm that offers a medical appointment booking service, reported big increases in appointments for mammograms, skin cancer screenings and HPV vaccinations, among other things, in the last year compared with the one before.
The Covid-19 pandemic hasn’t prompted countries to open their wallets to fight longtime scourges like polio, AIDS and malaria.
And that’s despite evidence that the infections pose renewed dangers: Polio spread in New York last summer. HIV rates pink in San Francisco during the pandemic for the first time in a decade.
The most recent fundraising setback was yesterday’s pledging event for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.
The initiative, a partnership that includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization and other global organizations and foundations received $2.57 billion in commitments toward its polio eradication strategy over the next five years.
It was seeking $4.8 billion.
The US pledged $114 million, less than 10 percent of the $1.2 billion pledged by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
That underwhelming response follows a disappointing September fundraiser for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which missed its three-year goal of $18 billion by more than 20 percent. It received pledges of $14.2 billion.
What’s happening: Wealthy nations face the prospect of recession, and they borrowed heavily to fight Covid-19. Domestic economic concerns outweigh lessons learned about the importance of disease prevention on a global scale.
Masks impede people’s ability to understand and share emotions, according to a new study from researchers at McGill University.
Psychologists at McGill tested standard masks, as well as ones you can see through, and found the transparent face coverings were no panacea.
While people could read each other’s emotions when they gave transparent masks, in contrast to opaque ones, the see-through versions didn’t restore the ability to empathize.