Filed under: Brain Health, Industry Standards, Telemedicine | Tags: AcuteCare Telemedicine, atlanta neurology, brain health, diagnose, healthcare news, mhealth, modern medicine, National Parkinson's Fooundation, neurologist, neurology, parkinson disease, parkinson's treatment, parkinson's virtual care, remote monitoring, stroke care, telehealth, telemedicine, teleneurology, telestroke
Ask any patient suffering from chronic disease and they often will tell a story of isolation, uncertainty and frustration over the debilitating effects of their disease. Many times the focus of their complaints is not being afforded easy access to specialized care and consultation with caregivers. While significant inroads have been made in the treatment options for chronic maladies like Diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, gaining routine, daily access to those ground breaking discoveries is out of the reach of many sufferers.
Researchers are looking at how modern communication technology, coupled with the latest techniques in treating Parkinson disease, can revolutionize the quality of care for sufferers of the chronic neurological disorder. “We are looking at quality of life, quality of care and reducing the burden on healthcare providers”, says Dr. Ray Dorsey, co-director of the Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “Imagine if you thought there was a possibility you had Parkinson’s disease, but you lived 100 miles or more from the nearest medical center with a qualified neurologist. You’re faced with at least a couple of hours of driving, of navigating an unfamiliar urban environment, of parking and walking—and that’s assuming you’re able to find a neurologist within driving distance to begin with. Now think about how easy it is to buy a book or a pair of shoes online. The two should not be so different.”
Preliminary results of the Connect.Parkinson project, the nation’s first randomized clinical trial of remote treatment of Parkinson’s disease, indicate the benefits of virtual treatment for patients and caregivers alike. A recent report on the initial results of the 18-state, Connect.Parkinson project reported that 95 percent of Parkinson’s patients completing telehealth visits have experienced an increased proportion of the time with a healthcare professional of 89 percent; up from 25 percent for those opting for traditional in-person encounters.
The National Parkinson Foundation is committed to supporting efforts to demonstrate how telemedicine can enhance the delivery of care to people with Parkinson’s. Studies are indicating that telemedicine care, often delivered in the patients home, is just as good as care received at a brick and motor medical center. The fact that diagnosing and monitoring the progression of Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders is based almost entirely on visual observation makes Parkinson uniquely suited for virtual care technologies. Christopher Goetz, MD, a leading expert on movement disorders and director of the Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center at Rush University Medical Center says, “Ninety-five percent of the information I gather is visual. Thus, with telemedicine visits where I can see and hear my patient right in front of me on the computer screen, there is no decline in the quality of information I gather.”
Rush is located in the state of Illinois which is among those states not yet mandating payers to provide payments for telemedical services. But according to Dr. Brian Patty, Rush’s chief medical information office and chairman of Rush’s Telemedicine Steering Committee, the Medical Center has several telemedicine pilot projects underway that can likely have significant impact on Parkinson patients.
In New York, researchers at The Rochester Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, are developing and testing mobile apps that will help Parkinson’s patients track metrics such as dexterity, balance, gait, voice patterns and cognition, then send readings to researchers.
After decades of promises, telemedicine is delivering on its promise to increase access to quality, specialty care to improve patient outcomes.
Filed under: Industry Standards, Telemedicine | Tags: acute stroke care, AcuteCare Telemedicine, american telemedicine association, Atlanta healthcare news, healthcare news, mhealth, modern medicine, neurology, payment parity, payment telelemdicine services, stroke care, Technology, telehealth, telemedicine, teleneurology, telestroke
Telemedicine is living up to its hype on revolutionizing the healthcare delivery model. With many of the most formidable barriers to increased expansion being overcome, virtual technology is quickly becoming a preferred method for patients when connecting with their care provider. New advances in hardware and software coupled with faster digital info structure, is driving more and more healthcare professionals to electronic communications. Patients are warming-up to using new devices to relay their blood pressure, heart rate and other vital signs to their doctors so they can manage chronic conditions in the comfort of their home.
Healthcare providers, payers and governmen supported healthcare programs are recognizing the potential cost savings of telemedicine technologies. However, payment policies for telehealth services, while expanding quickly, continue to be inconsistent and are discouraging the progress towards realizing the full potential of virtual healthcare. Providers are eager to embrace telehealth. A survey of more than 1,500 family physicians conducted for Anthem and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) found that “almost 90% of respondents would use telehealth to help treat their patients—if they were compensated for that care.” Richard Bakalar, MD, managing director at KPMG and a member of the firm’s Global Healthcare Center of Excellence says, “Healthcare providers need to figure out how to become more efficient and the technology behind telemedicine allows caregivers to connect with patients remotely, efficiently and effectively.”
Currently payments for telehealth services are as far flung as the 50 states landscape. New rules for Medicaid managed care and MACRA are becoming telehealth-friendly, but Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are spotty, with Medicaid payment varying greatly from state to state. Today, 48 states and the District of Columbia provide some form of Medicaid payment for telehealth services, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Commercial insurers seem to be embracing telehealth but consistency of payment policy remains elusive. In just over half of the states and the District of Columbia, private insurers are answering the call of parity laws that require them to pay for telehealth services. Payment parity is important for providers because it protects them against arbitrary cuts in reimbursement for telehealth services as compared to services provided in-person.
While expansion of virtual technology continues to progress at a steady pace, solutions to resolving remaining barriers like payment for services, multistate licensing, credentialing, and regulation are evolving at a deliberate pace.
Filed under: Industry Standards, News, Telemedicine | Tags: AcuteCare Telemedicine, american telemedicine association, disrupting healthcare delivery, EHR, electronic health records, game changer, game changer in healthcare, mhealth, mHealth Intelligence, modern medicine, patient flow, patient management, Technology, telehealth, telemedicine, teleneurology, virtual care
Telemedicine is fast becoming the most promising break-through in the delivery of healthcare in the last century. While the promise has many championing the cause for expanded and universal use, some challenging hurdles remain in the way. Legislatures and medical boards are busy modifying regulations, payment structures, licensing and credentialing at various pace but one particular road block could derail the telehealth train if a workable connection is not soon found.
The video connection with the doctor is meeting the patient’s expectation for quick healthcare, but the process can often be overwhelming to providers who must sync the new service to their existing EHR platform. The key to a solution lies in creating a new virtual care environment within the providers existing EHR. James T. McElligott, MD, medical director for telehealth at the Medical University of South Carolina, is among a handful of health systems around the country that are pioneering virtual visits on a sustainable and scalable platform. “If you try to do something outside of that platform, there are downstream effects that end up making things very difficult” for the provider.
While some of the industry’s largest providers of EHR platforms have been slow to answer the call for a solution, smaller companies are making the connection happen for an increasingly larger number of provider clients. “We see time and again that workflow integration and ease of use are crucial factors to physician adoption of telehealth technologies,” Eran Westman, Vidyo CEO.
In a recent article by Eric Wicklund and published in mHealth Intelligence, titled “Virtual Care Within the EHR May Be a ‘Game-Changer”, the author reports on how some innovative companies are integrating creative solutions to the challenges presented when attempting to marry telemedicine services and existing electronic health records (EHR).
The idea of an electronic medical recording system was imposed upon an unprepared and often reluctant provider market several years ago. Many of the early glitches’ and bugs, that traditionally come with the roll-out of any new software system have been addressed, but the memory of the “fixing” process is fresh in the minds of many early users, leaving them less than enthusiastic about integrating still newer technologies into their daily routine.
It is becoming very clear to many in the healthcare industry that the once casual attitude towards telemedicine is changing as more and more applications for telecommunication technology in the delivery of healthcare become a reality. The disruption will continue. Telemedicine and EHR’s are not going to go away. Negotiating a workable union may indeed be the all-important game-changer for expanding telehealth.
Filed under: Industry Standards, News, Telemedicine | Tags: AcuteCare Telemedicine, american telemedicine association, fearing change in healthcare delivery, healthcare, healthcare industry, healthcare news, modern medicine, Technology, telehealth, telemedicine, teleneurology
Despite the promise of significant consumer benefits of access and costs and the overall growth of Telemedicine, many patients and physicians are slow to adopt new communication technologies in the delivery of healthcare. A recent article in Medical Economics News reported that “A HealthMine Survey of 500 consumers who use mobile/Internet-connected health applications finds that 39% still have not heard of telemedicine, and only one-third of respondents say their health plan offers telehealth as an option.” And while many patients have not yet signed on to telehealth services, nearly three quarters of patients are interested in using it in place of in-person medical appointments. Could it be that the slow progression of patient participation may be due to resistance and lack of participation from care providers?
One of the most prolific reasons many providers resist the technology is the concern that patients would be unwilling to replace traditional face-to-face physician encounters with a virtual relationship and that many consumers would be fearful of the technology, particularly those among the growing number of “Baby Boomer” patients. But in a recent Georgetown University study, the results indicated that more than half of the aging generation preferred to use this technology. And among those 34 years of age and under, 60 percent desired a virtual interaction with their physician.
Some of the complaints from cautious physicians revolve around the complexity and cost of technology hardware and software and the difficulties in merging new platforms into existing operations, particularly syncing virtual experiences with current EHR systems. Ongoing design improvements in the technology and simpler user interfaces are driving down cost and simplifying required functions. The reality today is that telemedicine improves the bottom line for most medical practices while reducing appointment management and patient flow issues.
As legislatures across the country continue to make progress on modifying existing regulatory barriers and concerns involving payment parity, payer participation and individual state licensing and credentialing, many early telemedicine supporters are beginning to see the light at the end of the increased adoption tunnel. For those providers who continue to resist the trends of virtual medical technology, the time is nearing to overcome the natural tendency to resist and fear change. The simple truth is patients prefer and want telehealth choices and the technology is here to stay.
Filed under: Industry Standards, News, Stroke Prevention & Care, Telemedicine | Tags: activity trackers, acute stroke, AcuteCare Telemedicine, american telemedicine association, Atlanta healthcare news, atlanta neurology, healthcare data, healthcare industry, healthcare news, integrated data, mhealth, smart watches, Technology, telehealth, telemedicine, teleneurology, wearables
The early implementers of telemedicine faced resistance, skepticism, and predicted peril from an industry that has followed a standard of care, governed by regulations. Those initial trailblazers have prevailed in their efforts to improve access to specialized care for patients living afar from major medical centers, enhancing patient’s healthcare experiences and reducing the unnecessary cost of specialized treatment and ongoing chronic care. Their persistent efforts to merge the latest digital technologies in communication with modern medical care has spawned new terms to languages all around the world; Telepsychiatry, Telestroke, Telemedicine, TeleICU and Telehealth, just to name a few.
Technology is having a wider impact on how healthcare providers connect with their patients and dispense treatment. This connected health revolution is making everyone active participant’s in their healthcare through an ever expanding network of devices and platforms. But as is often the case, development of new technology can outpace the ability of an industry and their consumers to accept and engage the new methods.
Consumers have demonstrated an impressive demand and utilization of digital healthcare tools like activity trackers, smart watches and their accompanying health apps, but nearly half of the users complain that their caregiver is failing to integrate the data into a personalized healthcare plan. A survey, conducted by HealthMine, called “The State and Impact of Digital Health Tools,” found that “a significant amount of digital health data is not reaching doctors or health plans and that there appears to be a disconnect between where consumers would like their self-collected health data to go and how easy it is to share it.”
Many physicians articulate an understandable concern about the accuracy of many of these devices and the process of collecting and transferring the data. In a recent article Vaughn Kauffman, a global practice leader in PwC’s Health Industries Advisory, indicated that physicians have some apprehension around taking in data from mHealth devices and wearables. “Some providers are further down the road than others around utilizing these kinds of data for engagement. There’s the potential to extend the doctor-patient relationship to beyond the direct doctor visit interaction. And obviously, this would involve individuals opting in, as opposed to kind of a Big Brother phenomenon.”
While wearables continue to be popular, many once avid users are discontinuing their engagement with the technology. Some indicate their waning interest is due to not understanding how the data collection will benefit them or enhance their digital health plan. Education and better understanding of the technology and how it can benefit both providers and patients in improving the delivery of healthcare will solidify the acceptance and use of the technology. The early pioneers of telemedicine have opened the trail to a much larger spectrum of services but wider engagement is still dependent on the ability of technology to deliver on its promises.
Filed under: Industry Standards, News, Telemedicine | Tags: AcuteCare Telemedicine, american telemedicine association, Arkansas legislation, Atlanta healthcare news, atlanta neurology, brain health, healthcare news, neurology, patients, removing barriers, Technology, telehealth, telemedical services, telemedicine, teleneurology, telestroke
Until recently, the state of Arkansas was ranked last among all states in a recent report by the American Telemedicine Association on telemedicine practice standards. Like many other states, Arkansas’s treatment of healthcare via telecommunication technologies included restrictions forbidding caregivers the opportunity to treat a patient remotely without first establishing a face to face relationship. While other regulations purposefully and effectively deal with commonly acceptable policies that hold virtual healthcare treatment to the same standards of care as traditional in-person encounters; control the prescription of certain drugs via telemedicine; require the responsible handling of medical recording; and doctor/patient transparency, the restrictions on non-pre service face to face encounters and the insistence on individual state licensing of physicians is arguably the two regulations which proponents of telemedicine feel are hindering the wider adoption of telemedical services across the country.
Recently issued proposed amendments to its existing regulations have been approved by the State Legislature. Arkansas Code 17-80-117, will allow a doctor to establish a valid relationship with a patient without the need for an in-person exam, if the doctor “performs a face to face examination using real time audio and visual telemedicine technology that provides information at least equal to such information as would have been obtained by an in-person examination.” The rule also requires the doctor to establish a face to face follow-up visit when and if it is medically necessary.
The sound one hears from this action may just be the noise regulatory ice makes when it is breaking under the pressure of consumer demand and the application technological common sense. While the proposed changes do nothing to alleviate the cost and inconvenience of individual state physicians licensing requirements, the removal of the face-to-face, pre-telemedicine service requirement could open up the virtual care landscape in states where the face-to-face regulation still exists.
The Arkansas Board held a public hearing involving the proposed amendment to Regulation 2.8 and new Regulation 38 in June and encouraged telemedicine companies and healthcare providers looking to offer telemedicine services in Arkansas to review the proposed regulations and consider submitting comments.
Adoption of the proposed changes to Arkansas rules governing telehealth services may be seen as a water-shed action for healthcare professionals who believe consumers will benefit from both increased healthcare access and reduced cost when telemedicine is permitted to more freely expand across state lines.