SDSU Telehealth Reform Discussion

The debate surroundings the efficacy of telehealth generally involves cost, access to care, and the doctor-patient relationship.

Respond to the following prompt:

As a health administrator providing advice to state and hospitals officials, recommend and discuss six (6) new approaches (2 approaches for each area: (1) cost, (2) access to care, and (3) doctor-patient relationship) that could be developed into policies for improving the effectiveness of telehealth in the US.

USE THE FOLLOWING LINKS:

fact-sheet-telehealth-2-4-19.pdf (aha.org)

MEDICARE-TELEHEALTH-POLICIES-POST-PHE-AT-A-GLANCE-FINAL-MAR-2023.pdf (cchpca.org)

Telemedicine: Ultimate Guide – Everything You Need to Know (evisit.com)

(sections 1-12; 15-19)

Telemedicine for healthcare: Capabilities, features, barriers, and applications – PMC (nih.gov)

T h e n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l o f m e dic i n e
Spe ci a l R e p or t
Telehealth
Reed V. Tuckson, M.D., Margo Edmunds, Ph.D., and Michael L. Hodgkins, M.D., M.P.H.
Telehealth, a term used interchangeably with telemedicine, has been defined as the use of medical information that is exchanged from one site
to another through electronic communication to
improve a patient’s health.1 The purpose of this
article is to present policy-relevant trends in
telehealth adoption, to describe the state of the
telehealth evidence base, and to assist physicians,
other health care professionals, and researchers in
identifying key priorities for telehealth research.
Such research is necessary to fully realize the
promise of telehealth to address socially desirable goals such as the quadruple aim in health
care: improving the patient experience of care,
improving the health of populations, reducing
the per capita cost of health care, and improving
the experience of providing care.
Telehealth technologies, tools, and services are
becoming an important component of the health
care system (Fig. 1). The Department of Health
and Human Services estimates that more than
60% of all health care institutions and 40 to 50%
of all hospitals in the United States currently use
some form of telehealth.2 Late in 2016, Kaiser
Permanente of Northern California reported that
its virtual (e-mail, telephone, and video) communications exceeded in-person visits.3 Other
health systems, such as Geisinger Health System,
Intermountain Healthcare, Partners HealthCare,
the University of Virginia Health System, and the
Veterans Health Administration, report using
telehealth interventions for purposes such as filling gaps in care that result from provider shortages and providing access to services after normal
clinic hours, reducing patient and family travel
burdens, facilitating services such as appointment
scheduling and refilling prescriptions, and responding to business challenges and consumer
expectations.
Private insurers increasingly provide reimbursement for telehealth, as evidenced by the prediction of the National Business Group on Health
n engl j med 377;16
that virtually all large employers will cover telehealth services for their employees by 2020.4 In
31 states and the District of Columbia, parity
laws require commercial health insurers to provide equal coverage for telehealth and in-person
services.5 Medicaid has no restrictions for state
coverage of telehealth services. Currently, all states
cover teleradiology, 49 cover telemental health, and
36 cover various home-based telehealth services.6
TELEMEDICINE
TOOLS
TELEMEDICINE
SERVICES
Clinicians often
communicate
through e-mail,
video, or both
Dermatology
Radiology
Surgical peer mentoring
Emergency trauma
and ICU care
Video
Phone
E-mail
Remote wireless
monitoring
Internet
Care for chronic conditions
Medication management
Wound care
Counseling
Postdischarge follow-up
Mental health
Wearable monitors
Smartphones
Mobile apps
Video
E-mail
Web portals
Games
Health education
Monitoring of
physical activity
Monitoring of diet
Medication adherence
Cognitive fitness
Clinician to Clinician
Clinician to Patient
Patient to Mobile Health
Technology
Health Trac
ker
Integration with electronic medical records
Data analytics
Figure 1. How Doctors Use Telemedicine and How Patients Benefit.
Adapted from the American Telemedicine Association. ICU denotes intensive
care unit.
nejm.org
October 19, 2017
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on January 7, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
1585
T h e n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l o f m e dic i n e
Table 1. Five Key Trends That Will Influence the Growth of Telehealth Care
Delivery.
Trend
Continuous innovation in the consumer technology market (e.g., with respect
to applications, wearable sensors with wireless monitoring capabilities,
and related digital capabilities), which will continue to attract financial
­capital for product development12
Continuous advancement in electronic health records and clinical-decision
support systems, which has the potential to better integrate telehealth
­services into care-delivery processes and thus make care delivery more
­efficient for clinicians13
Projected shortages in the health professional workforce, which will increase
the need to provide access to primary and specialty care for rural and
­underserved urban populations14
Reorganization in the delivery and financing of medical care, as a result of
­private-sector initiatives and the Affordable Care Act, toward value-based
reimbursement, which provides an incentive for service delivery in lowercost care settings outside of traditional hospital facilities15-17
Growth of consumerism in health care, with increasing public expectations
for convenient and real-time access to health services, personal health information, prescription refills, and other health interventions in a manner
similar to other sectors of the economy18-20
Medicare has been more restrictive, reimbursing only when the beneficiary is in a rural originating site. However, reimbursement is expanding
under the Medicare Access and CHIP (Children’s
Health Insurance Program) Reauthorization Act
of 2015 (MACRA) and is included in the new
bundled-payment formulas for cardiac care and
joint replacement as well as in the Next Generation Accountable Care Organization payment
model.5,7-11 In addition, the 21st Century Cures
Act requires the federal government to study the
effect of telehealth on Medicare beneficiaries.
We believe that the five trends identified in
Table 1 have the potential to accelerate telehealth
adoption into the delivery of clinical care. However, this ultimately depends on the evolving
business and policy context that shapes these
trends, especially the integration of telehealth
data into electronic medical record systems and
the penetration of value-based reimbursement
formulas that influence decisions about technology investment. Other determinant factors in
telehealth adoption, as described below, include
the penetration of clinician training combined
with progress in enhancing the usability of telehealth technologies in daily workflows; success
in navigating evolving relationships between patients and their physicians; and the availability
of evidence-based clinical guidance.
1586
n engl j med 377;16
There is an urgency for enhancing the evidence
for telehealth technology applications as clinicians and consumers expand their use in numerous areas21,22: real-time video consultations with
off-site specialists in fields such as cardiology,
dermatology, psychiatry and behavioral health,
gastroenterology, infectious disease, rheumatology, oncology, and peer-to-peer mentoring; telephone, e-mail, and video visits for primary care
triage and interventions such as counseling,
medication prescribing and management, and
management of long-term treatment for diabetes,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure; technologies for transferring imaging data for off-site radiologic review;
hospital-based services, such as emergency and
trauma care, stroke intervention, intensive care,
and wound management, that are supported by
specialty consultations through videoconferencing
and securely transmitted high-resolution images;
postdischarge coordination and management of
chronic and other illnesses in home and community-based settings, supported by remotemonitoring capabilities, improved resolution of
smartphone cameras, and growing consumer
familiarity with video interactions; and wellness
interventions, in areas such as health education,
physical activity, diet monitoring, health risk assessment, medication adherence, and cognitive
fitness, that use video channels, smartphone apps
and texts, and Web portals.
A recent technical brief prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
provides a valuable assessment of the evidence
supporting telehealth interventions and of the
gaps in the available evidence.22 The map of 58
systematic reviews, covering 965 individual studies published between 2007 and 2015, provides
evidence of effectiveness for uses in remote monitoring of patients, communication and counseling for patients with chronic conditions, and psychotherapy support for behavioral interventions.
The brief noted that additional systematic reviews
are needed to more thoroughly evaluate the available primary evidence for telehealth consultation,
the deployment of telehealth technologies in intensive care settings, and applications in maternal
and child health. Finally, the report noted the
limited availability of even primary evidence regarding the use of telehealth in triage for urgent
and primary care beyond telephone-only interven-
nejm.org
October 19, 2017
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on January 7, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Special Report
Table 2. Recommendations for Telehealth Research.
Topic
Recommendation
Physician leadership
Physicians should seek to enhance telehealth care delivery through collaborations with telehealth technology and service providers and contribute to the
evidence base by comparing telehealth outcomes with usual care.
Reimbursement
Current Procedural Terminology codes should be updated to facilitate reimbursement-related research in fee-for-service settings, and the effect of alternative
payment models that use bundled telehealth services should be studied to
determine purchaser returns on investment.
Licensure
The necessary facilitation of interstate licensure should be supported by ongoing
research regarding any quality-of-care issues that may arise.
Liability
Evidence is necessary to better understand what, if any, quality and safety risks
may differentiate telehealth service delivery from traditional in-person care.
Human factors
Research on user-centered design is needed to facilitate the integration of telehealth into clinical workflows and to optimize patient engagement.
Device interoperability and data
­integration
Evidence-based best practices and standards that support the most effective integration of devices and data streams from clinician and patient telehealth
engagement should be widely shared.
Privacy and security
Standardized guidelines are necessary and should be based on evidence and best
practices to support appropriate safeguards and regulatory oversight.
Performance measurement
Enhanced evidence is required to address gaps in existing telehealth-related clinical performance measures and enhance those currently available.
Patient engagement and the evolving
patient–physician relationship
Evidence-based guidance is needed to support health professional counseling
and engagement with patients and caregivers across the full spectrum of
­telehealth services and technologies.
Research design and methods
Telehealth research in real-world settings requires alternative research designs,
new research methods, and innovative analytic techniques that supplement
traditional randomized, controlled trials and should be supported with enhanced funding and an expanded workforce.
tions; management of serious pediatric conditions;
teledermatology; and the integration of mental
and physical health care delivery. Especially noteworthy was the observation of limited evidence
regarding the effect of telehealth on health care
costs and utilization and the consequences of
new payment models.
Ke y A spec t s of Telehe alth Ser vice
Delivery
At least nine key aspects of telehealth service
delivery require enhanced research and evidence
production if clinicians and patients are to optimize telehealth interventions. As such, we make
a number of recommendations about research
priorities (Table 2).
Physician Leadership
Physicians define care culture and, as such, require confidence in the care standards regarding
settings, appropriateness criteria, and reliability for
n engl j med 377;16
the deployment, or not, of telehealth tools in diagnosis and therapeutic interventions. Because software developers often lack sufficient understanding of the nuances of health care delivery,23
physicians should be prepared to engage with
innovators of telehealth technology throughout
product life cycles. As directed by the American
Medical Association (AMA) Council on Ethical
and Judicial Affairs, “through their professional
organizations and institutions, physicians should
support ongoing refinement of technologies and
the development of clinical standards for telehealth
and telemedicine.” The council further suggests
that “physicians collectively should advocate for
access to telehealth and telemedicine services for
all patients who could benefit from receiving care
electronically. Professional organizations and
institutions should monitor telehealth and telemedicine to identify and address adverse consequences as technologies evolve and identify and
encourage dissemination of positive outcomes.”24
Evidence is essential to accomplish this goal.
nejm.org
October 19, 2017
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on January 7, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
1587
T h e n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l o f m e dic i n e
Reimbursement
Reimbursement is a key determinant in the use
of clinical interventions. The movement toward
value-based reimbursement that provides incentives for care delivery in the lowest-cost care
settings, the identification of and interaction
with high-risk persons before disease onset, and
the efficient use of integrated care teams all
provide incentives for telehealth growth. Understanding the effect of reimbursement within the
context of alternative payment models, such as
those included in MACRA, is a particular priority. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services continues to reconsider its limited definition of telehealth-reimbursable services as it
develops a plan for implementing provisions of
MACRA,7 offering an important opportunity to
support clinicians in meeting the goals of new
value-based payment models. Although the trajectory of value-based reimbursement is uncertain, efficiency in care delivery will inevitably be
a priority under any scenario. A related issue is
ensuring that these technologies are used for
patients who meet the appropriate clinical requirements.
Currently, gaps in the Current Procedural
Terminology (CPT) codes that document telehealth encounters frustrate payment for services
such as remote monitoring of patients and the
use of online services for patient care. In 2015,
the CPT Editorial Panel of the AMA, which oversees maintenance of the CPT code set, formed a
workgroup to support the integration of emerging telehealth services into clinical practice with
new coding solutions. In addition, the AMA recently formed a multistakeholder body called the
Digital Medicine Payment Advisory Group, which
is focused on coding and payment, among other
issues (Ahlman J: personal communication).
A more complete set of codes will also provide more precise data to address the paucity of
systematic economic evaluation of the benefits
of telehealth in both fee-for-service and valuebased models of care and payment.21,22 Filling
this gap is essential to support public and private purchasers of care, technology purchasers,
and technology investors as they make decisions
about return on investment in this field.
time-consuming, and financially burdensome
labyrinth of conflicting state licensure requirements. Beginning in April 2013, the Federation
of State Medical Boards (FSMB) spearheaded the
creation of the Interstate Medical Licensure
Compact (IMLC), which is intended to increase
efficiency in multistate licensing of physicians.25
Currently, 21 state legislatures have enacted the
compact into state law, thereby enabling their
participation in the IMLC,26 and federal funding
from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is helping the FSMB to recruit
more states. Research is needed to better understand the relationship between facilitating interstate licensure and quality-of-care outcomes to
protect against any adverse consequences.
Liability
The results of a recent AMA survey indicated
that liability coverage was a “must-have” for
physician adoption of digital tools such as telehealth.27 The Physician Insurers Association of
America (PIAA), the trade association representing the medical and health care professional liability insurance industry, reports that there is
not a “typical” liability insurer for telehealth.
According to an August 15, 2016, e-mail message from Michael Stinson, J.D., vice president of
government relations and public policy at PIAA,
liability insurance issues regarding telehealth
are, generally, taken on a case-by-case basis with
each policyholder, depending on the frequency
with which the physician sees patients through
telehealth and the practice specialty. From a
public policy perspective, most liability carriers
lean toward using the physician’s state of licensure rather than the patient’s location to define
coverage. There is a need for new knowledge to
understand the distinctions, if any, in the quality and safety risks that differentiate telehealth
service delivery from traditional in-person care.
Human Factors
Important lessons for telehealth integration can
be learned from the implementation of electronic health records (EHRs), particularly the
importance of usability design and clinician
training to enhance productivity, quality, and
safety.28,29 User-centered design that facilitates
Licensure
the integration of telehealth into workflows and
Because telehealth service delivery often crosses clinical routines is essential,30 especially with
state lines, telehealth providers confront a complex, respect to remote physical examination.
1588
n engl j med 377;16
nejm.org
October 19, 2017
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on January 7, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Special Report
Ease of use is equally important for consumers of telehealth interventions. For example, a
recent study involving multiple smartphoneenabled sensors required patients to set up and
log into a third-party portal. One of three participants submitted help-desk requests, which suggests that the system was not consumer-friendly
and was unnecessarily burdensome.31 Telehealth
interventions must be informed by more research on their usability by both providers and
patients.
Device Interoperability and Data Integration
As telehealth clinical tools proliferate, clinicians
require that such tools work seamlessly together
and are supported by data streams that are integrated into electronic records.32 Devices remain
suboptimally integrated; for example, most EHR
systems are unable to integrate patient-generated data from remote self-monitoring devices.32,33
This issue is especially important given the need
to find solutions to the tsunami of patient-generated data that, if not coordinated and made
actionable, threatens to overwhelm clinicians.
To address this challenge, the American Telemedicine Association (ATA) and other industry
groups have advocated for EHRs to begin to incorporate patient-generated data from remotemonitoring apps and devices.34 One promising
approach is shown by the SMART Health IT
platform, in which standards-based, open-source
application programming interfaces (APIs) such
as Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources
(FHIR) allow clinical apps to run across health
systems and integrate with EHRs.35 Research
that informs these efforts is a priority.
fully realize the benefits of telehealth.41 Research that informs solutions in this area is a
priority.
Performance Measurement
As articulated by the Vital Directions for Health
and Health Care initiative of the National Academy of Medicine, a health system that performs
optimally must be able to address the demands
for accountability and information on the quality, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction of
system performance.42 Performance measurement is essential for new technologies such as
telehealth, as public and private purchasers
concerned with appropriate use, and capital investors concerned about return on investment,
require continued demonstration of value in actual clinical experience. The National Quality
Forum recently launched the Telehealth Framework to Support Measure Development 2016–
2017, a 1-year project to identify existing and
potential telehealth metrics and prioritize a list
of concepts and guiding principles for telehealth
measurement.43
Several national medical specialty societies
have also developed or will be developing clinical guidelines and position statements addressing telehealth.39,44 In addition, the ATA accreditation program evaluates the quality of real-time,
online patient services to promote patient safety,
transparency of pricing and operations, and adherence to provider credentialing and laws and
regulations.45 Performance measurement requires an evidence basis and is a critical priority
that must be addressed.
Privacy and Security
Patient Engagement and the Evolving
Patient–Physician Relationship
As software and devices become more interoperable, data become more integrated and patients
generate and interact with more data. These
trends ensure that privacy and security will become more complex and important. Currently,
federal and state guidelines for telehealth security and privacy are not standardized, leaving
considerable gaps.36 Several medical specialty
societies have suggested administrative, physical, and technical safeguards to enhance security.37-40 It has also been suggested that a comprehensive regulatory framework enforced by a
single federal entity will be required to increase
and maintain patient and provider trust and to
Wireless monitoring, mobile health applications, social media, and smartphone video capabilities, among others, offer innovative possibilities to extend care relationships well beyond
the traditional in-patient visit. The relationship
between patients and physicians will inevitably
be affected by patients’ use of these new sources
of clinical information and guidance, as they
engage in their own health management. These
tools will produce a large amount of new data
and information and will change provider workflow, work culture, and interpersonal boundaries,
resulting in new challenges to evolving patient–
physician relationships. Clinicians will be espe-
n engl j med 377;16
nejm.org
October 19, 2017
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on January 7, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
1589
T h e n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l o f m e dic i n e
cially challenged in assisting their patients in the
use of consumer-directed health apps. For example, a recent Commonwealth Fund report stated
that although mobile applications are a “potentially promising tool for engaging patients in
their health care,” only about 43 percent of iOS
apps and 27 percent of Android apps appeared
likely to be useful.46
Recent guidance from the AMA Council on
Ethical and Judicial Affairs notes that new technologies and new models of care will continue
to emerge, but physicians’ fundamental ethical
responsibilities will remain the same as long as
physicians have access to the information they
need to make well-grounded recommendations
for each patient. According to the guidelines,
physicians using telehealth should inform patients
about its technology and service limitations, advise patients how to arrange for follow-up care,
encourage patients to let their primary care physicians know when they have used telehealth, and
support policies and initiatives that promote
access to telehealth services for all patients who
could benefit from receiving care electronically.24
All these actions must be informed by evidencebased guidance.
Implic ations for Fu t ure Re se ar ch
Throughout this article, we have indicated key
areas that require greater research attention and
support. In addition to these, there are important methodologic challenges that must also be
addressed by the health services research field.
For example, the clinical care setting for telehealth medical and surgical services can be complex. The interventions often involve one or more
technical methods (e.g., Web portal, smartphone,
and wearable sensors) and are frequently delivered by members of comprehensive care teams
who engage patients throughout the stages of
care intervention. As a result, the specificity and
generalizability of research findings, and the
translation of research into guidance for different
members of integrated health teams, can become
complicated.22 The multicomponent and personalized nature of these interventions, the pace of
change in mobile technology, and the relatively
nonstandardized, context-sensitive application of
these tools in the clinical setting present research
challenges.
1590
n engl j med 377;16
Although randomized, controlled trials are
the standard to establish intervention efficacy in
health care delivery, they may be limited in their
generalizability and unable to account for intervention adaptations or contextual factors that
may influence outcomes in different settings and
for different populations. Fortunately, an increasing array of rigorous study designs are now available to assess a broad range of such complex
interventions.47 These include cluster randomization, pragmatic trials, large, simple trials, factorial designs, and stepped-wedge designs. The
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute has
begun to establish methodologic standards for
these alternative designs.48 Innovative analytic
techniques and tools are becoming available to
evaluate multicomponent interventions that integrate data from EHRs, claims, laboratories, imaging, pharmacies, and other sources.49,50 In addition, new methods from implementation science,
such as rapid evidence reviews, and the increasing presence of researchers who are employed
by health systems show promise for faster and
better research on telehealth implementation,
including workflow, protocols for care coordination, and management of organizational change
to support team-based care and shared decision
making.51
Federal funding of telehealth research from
traditional sources such as the AHRQ and HRSA
is, unfortunately, uncertain. As such, other sources
of funding are essential. Health systems should
continue to fund research on telehealth implementation and support the dissemination of findings. Philanthropic organizations such as the
Commonwealth Fund, the Pew Charitable Trusts,
and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation should
continue to play a role in funding telehealth
studies. Finally, the developers of telehealth
products and solutions should be active in validating their tools by sponsoring independent
research and publicly reporting their findings.
Conclusions
The emergence of new telehealth-related capabilities and their integration into care-delivery
systems presents exciting opportunities to enhance value-based clinical care, health promotion,
and disease prevention. They also present challenges as health professionals adapt to innova-
nejm.org
October 19, 2017
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on January 7, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Special Report
tions in consumer technologies, integrate these
solutions into clinical workflow, seek evidencebased guidance for decision making, and manage the evolving relationships between care teams
and their patients. Clinicians deserve access to a
more complete body of evidence on telehealth
care as they make important decisions with, and
on behalf of, their patients.
The opinions expressed in the article are those of the authors
and should not be interpreted as American Medical Association
policy.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with
the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
We thank Jane Renae Devine, Annalynn Skipper, and Jessica
Washington of the American Telemedicine Association for administrative, technical, or material support.
From the Office of the Managing Director, Tuckson Health Connections, Sandy Springs, GA (R.V.T.); the Office of the Vice President, Evidence Generation and Translation, AcademyHealth,
Washington, DC (M.E.); and the Office of the Chief Medical Information Officer, American Medical Association, Chicago
(M.L.H.). Address reprint requests to Dr. Tuckson at Tuckson
Health Connections, 227 Sandy Springs Pl., Suite D-346, Sandy
Springs, GA 30328, or at ­drreed@​­tucksonhealthconnections​.­com.
1. About telemedicine. Washington, DC:​American Telemedi-
cine Association (http://www​.americantelemed​.org/​main/​about/​
about-telemedicine/​telemedicine-faqs).
2. Office of Health Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation. Report to Congress:​E-health and telemedicine. Washington, DC:​Department of Health and Human
Services, August 12, 2016 (https:/​/​aspe​.hhs​.gov/​sites/​default/​
files/​pdf/​206751/​TelemedicineE-HealthReport​.pdf).
3. Advisory Board. A milestone:​Kaiser now interacts more
with patients virtually than in-person. Daily Briefing. October
13, 2016 (https:/​/​w ww​.advisory​.com/​daily-briefing/​2016/​10/​13/​
kaiser-telehealth).
4. National Business Group on Health. The large employers
health plan (https:/​/​w ww​.businessgrouphealth​.org/​benchmarking/​
large-employer-surveys​.cfm).
5. Health policy brief:​telehealth parity laws. Health Affairs.
August 15, 2016 (http://www​.healthaffairs​.org/​healthpolicybriefs/​
brief​.php?brief_id=162).
6. Thomas L, Capistrant G. 50 State telemedicine gaps analysis:​
coverage & reimbursement. American Telemedicine Association.
January 2016 (https:/​/​higherlogicdownload​.s3​.amazonaws​.com/​
AMERICANTELEMED/​3c09839a-fffd-46f7-916c-692c11d78933/​
UploadedImages/​Policy/​State%20Policy%20Resource%20Center/​
Coverage%20-%202016_50-state-telehealth-gaps-analysis–coverage
-and-reimbursement​.pdf).
7. Letter from Jonathan D. Linkous, CEO, American Telemedicine Association, to Andrew Slavitt, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, RE:​Comments on CMS-5517-P;​“Medicare Program:​Merit-Based Incentive Payment System and Alternative Payment Model Incentive under the Physician Fee Schedule, and Criteria for Physician-Focused Payment Models.” June 23, 2016 (https:/​/​
higherlogicdownload​.s3​.amazonaws​.com/​AMERICANTELEMED/​
3c09839a-fffd-46f7-916c-692c11d78933/​UploadedImages/​Policy/​
ata-comments-on-macra​.pdf).
8. 42 U.S.Code § 1395m(m)(4)(C).
9. Episode payment models:​general information. Baltimore:​
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (https:/​/​innovation​
.cms​.gov/​initiatives/​epm/​).
10. Next generation ACO model. Baltimore:​Centers for Medicare
n engl j med 377;16
and Medicaid Services (https:/​/​innovation​.cms​.gov/​initiatives/​
Next-Generation-ACO-Model/​).
11. Comprehensive care for joint replacement. Baltimore:​Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (https:/​/​innovation​.cms​
.gov/​initiatives/​cjr).
12. Mercom Capital Group. Q2 2017 healthcare IT/digital health
funding and M&A report (http://store​.mercom​.mercomcapital​
.com/​product/​q2-2017-healthcare-it-digital-health-funding-and-ma
-report/​).
13. Garvin E. Why EHR integration is crucial for digital health
innovation. HIT Consultant. March 14, 2016 (http://hitconsultant​
.net/​2016/​03/​14/​why-ehr-integration-crucial-digital-health
-innovation/​).
14. Edmunds M, Sloan F, Steinwald A, eds. Geographic adjustment in Medicare payment:​phase II, implications for access,
quality and efficiency. Washington, DC:​National Academies
Press, 2012.
15. Fried BM, Sherer JD. Value based reimbursement:​the rock
thrown into the health care pond. Health Affairs Blog. July 8, 2016
(http://healthaffairs​.org/​blog/​2016/​07/​08/​value-based-reimbursement
-the-rock-thrown-into-the-health-care-pond/​).
16. Lee TH, Kaiser LS. Turning value-based health care into a real
business model. NEJM Catalyst. October 24, 2016 (http://catalyst​
.nejm​.org/​t urning-value-based-health-care-into-a-real-business
-model/​).
17. Nussbaum S, McClellan M, Smith MD, Conway PH. Paying
providers for value:​the path forward (update). Health Affairs
Blog. January 14, 2016 (http://healthaffairs​.org/​blog/​2016/​01/​14/​
paying-providers-for-value-the-path-forward/​).
18. Brennan PF, Safran C. Empowered consumers. In Lewis D,
Eysenbach G, Kukafka R, Stavri Z, Jimison HB, eds. Consumer
health informatics:​informing consumers and improving care.
New York:​Springer, 2005:​8-21.
19. Crane M. Integrating telemedicine into your practice. Medical
Economics. July 24, 2014 (http://medicaleconomics​.modernmedicine​
.com/​medical-economics/​content/​t ags/​a merican-telemedicine
association/​integrating-telemedicine-your-pract?page=full).
20. Gibbons MC, Wilson RF, Samal L, et al. Consumer health
informatics: results of a systematic evidence review and evidence
based recommendations. Transl Behav Med 2011;​1:​72-82.
21. Dinesen B, Nonnecke B, Lindeman D, et al. Personalized
telehealth in the future: a global research agenda. J Med Internet
Res 2016;​18(3):​e53.
22. Totten AM, Womack DM, Eden KB. Telehealth:​mapping the
evidence for patient outcomes from systematic reviews. Technical
brief no. 26. Rockville, MD:​Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, June 2016 (https:/​/​w ww​.effectivehealthcare​.ahrq​.gov/​ehc/​
products/​624/​2254/​telehealth-report-160630​.pdf).
23. Hostetter M, Klein S, McCarthy D. Taking digital health to
the next level:​promoting technologies that empower consumers
and drive health system transformation. New York:​The Commonwealth Fund, October 2014 (http://www​.commonwealthfund​.org/​
publications/​f und-reports/​2014/​oct/​t aking-digital-health-next
-level).
24. Ethical practice in telemedicine. Chicago:​American Medical
Association, 2016.
25. Federation of State Medical Boards. Understanding the Medical Licensure Compact. Euless, TX:​FSMB, 2013 (http://www​.fsmb​
.org/​policy/​advocacy-policy/​interstate-model-proposed-medical-lic).
26. Thomas L, Capistrant G. State telemedicine gaps analysis:​
physician practice standards & licensure. Washington, DC:​American Telemedicine Association, 2015 (https:/​/​higherlogicdownload​
.s3​.amazonaws​.com/​A MERICANTELEMED/​3c09839a-fffd-46f7
-916c-692c11d78933/​UploadedImages/​Policy/​State%20Policy%20
Resource%20Center/​Physici-%202016_50-state-telehealth-gaps
-analysis-md-physician-practices-licensure​.pdf).
27. Digital Health Study:​physicians’ motivations and requirements for adopting digital clinical tools. Chicago:​American
nejm.org
October 19, 2017
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on January 7, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
1591
Special Report
Medical Association, 2016 (https:/​/​w ww​.ama-assn​.org/​sites/​
default/​f iles/​media-browser/​specialty%20group/​washington/​
ama-digital-health-report923​.pdf).
28. Middleton B, Bloomrosen M, Dente MA, et al. Enhancing
patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of
electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA.
J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013;​20:​(e1):​e2-e8.
29. Agboola SO, Bates DW, Kvedar JC. Digital health and patient
safety. JAMA 2016;​315:​1697-8.
30. Parmanto B, Lewis AN Jr, Graham KM, Bertolet MH. Development of the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). Int J
Telerehabil 2016;​8:​3-10.
31. Bloss CS, Wineinger NE, Peters M, et al. A prospective randomized trial examining health care utilization in individuals
using multiple smartphone-enabled biosensors. PeerJ 2016;​4:​
e1554.
32. Letter to Senators Hatch, Isakson, Wyden, and Warner from
the American Telemedicine Association et al. June 22, 2015 (https:/​/​
higherlogicdownload​.s3​.amazonaws​.com/​AMERICANTELEMED/​
3c09839a-fffd-46f7-916c-692c11d78933/​UploadedImages/​Policy/​
multistakeholder-letter-to-senate-finance-chronic-care-work-group​
.pdf).
33. Edmunds M, Peddicord D, Frisse ME. Ten reasons interoperability is difficult in Weaver CA. In:​Ball MJ, Kim GR, Kiel JM,
eds. Healthcare information management systems:​cases, strategies, and solutions. 4th ed. New York:​Springer, 2016:​127-38.
34. Letter from Jonathan D. Linkous, CEO, American Telemedicine
Association, to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT
re:​Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification
Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 2014 Edition;​Revisions to the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology. May 7, 2012 (http://higherlogicdownload​.s3​
.amazonaws​.com/​AMERICANTELEMED/​3c09839a-fffd-46f7-916c
-692c11d78933/​UploadedImages/​Policy/​ATA_Comments_on_ONC
_Stds_and_Cert_NPRM​.pdf).
35. SMART Health IT Project. SMART — an app platform for
healthcare (http://smarthealthit​.org).
36. Luxton DD, Kayl RA, Mishkind MC. mHealth data security:
the need for HIPAA-compliant standardization. Telemed J E
Health 2012;​18:​284-8.
37. LeRouge C, Garfield MJ. Crossing the telemedicine chasm:
have the U.S. barriers to widespread adoption of telemedicine
been significantly reduced? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013;​
10:​6472-84.
38. Daniel H, Sulmasy LS. Policy recommendations to guide the
use of telemedicine in primary care settings: an American College
of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med 2015;​163:​787-9.
1592
n engl j med 377;16
39. American Academy of Dermatology. Position statement on
teledermatology. March 7, 2016 (http://www​.aad​.org/​Forms/​
Policies/​Uploads/​PS/​PS-Teledermatology​.pdf).
40. ACR–AAPM–SIIM practice parameter for electronic medical information privacy and security. 2014 (http://www​.acr​.org/​
~/​media/​419A8512DBDB4FDE99EC75B3C68B01CF​.pdf).
41. Hall JL, McGraw D. For telehealth to succeed, privacy and
security risks must be identified and addressed. Health Aff
(Millwood) 2014;​33:​216-21.
42. Dzau VJ, McClellan M, McGinnis JM. Vital directions for
health and healthcare: an initiative of the National Academy of
Medicine. JAMA 2016;​316:​711-2.
43. Telehealth framework to support measure development
2016–2017. Washington, DC:​National Quality Forum (http://www​
.qualityforum​.org/​ProjectDescription​.aspx?projectID=83231).
44. Silva E III, Breslau J, Barr RM, et al. ACR white paper on
teleradiology practice: a report from the Task Force on Teleradiology Practice. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;​10:​575-85.
45. Accreditation process:​steps to become ATA accredited.
Washington, DC:​American Telemedicine Association (http://www​
.americantelemed​.org/​main/​ata-accreditation/​ocp-accreditation
-process).
46. Singh K, Drouin LP, Newmark LP, et al. Developing a framework for evaluating the patient engagement, quality, and safety
of mobile health applications. New York:​The Commonwealth
Fund, February 2016 (http://www​.commonwealthfund​.org/​~/​media/​
files/​publications/​issue-brief/​2016/​feb/​1863_singh_framework
_evaluating_mobile_health_apps_ib_v2​.pdf).
47. Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, et al. Challenges, solutions
and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in
health care and public health. Health Services and Delivery Research. May 2016.
48. PCORI methodology standards. Washington, DC:​PatientCentered Outcomes Research Institute (http://www​
.pcori​
.org/​
research-results/​about-our-research/​research-methodology/​pcori
-methodology-standards#Clusters).
49. Psek WA, Stametz RA, Bailey-Davis LD, et al. Operationalizing the learning health care system in an integrated delivery
system. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2015;​3:​1122.
50. Zurovac J, Moreno L, Crosson J, Brown R, Schmitz R. Using
multifactorial experiments for comparative effectiveness research
in physician practices with electronic health record. EGEMS
(Wash DC) 2013;​1:​1037.
51. Lamont T, Barber N, de Pury J, et al. New approaches to
evaluating complex health and care systems. BMJ 2016;​352:​i154.
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr1503323
Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society.
nejm.org
October 19, 2017
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on January 7, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.