Resources & Reports

In October, four US Senators sent requests for more information to two of the largest pharmaceutical companies operating in the United States, Eli Lilly and Pfizer.  The letters concerned both companies’ recent actions in establishing telehealth direct-to-consumer (DTC) platforms. As noted in a press release by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), these platforms operate by providing an opportunity for consumers to “talk to a doctor now” after they have read about the company’s medications and the potential benefits.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) telehealth website offers a number of resources for patients and providers looking to utilize services via telehealth. The website also offers funding opportunities related to telehealth and broadband programs, as well as a research section.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a new report regarding remote patient monitoring (RPM), which describes existing federal coverage policies and recent utilization rates, as well as recommending additional oversight of the telehealth modality’s use within the Medicare program. In particular, OIG’s review sought to understand how RPM, which is the collection and transmission of health data in a patient’s home to assist providers in managing a patient’s condition, is being used by Medicare patients and billed by Medicare providers. OIG found a dramatic increase in RPM use over the past few years and made a number of recommendations to ensure sufficient oversight and billing of RPM services going forward.

A recent court decision once again highlights the ability for legal rulings to impact telehealth policy, consistent with the focus of CCHP’s recent Telehealth and Court Cases webinar series, and raises interesting policy questions that have potentially far-reaching implications. Last month in Hines v. Pardue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found in favor of Ronald Hines, a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, after an over-a-decade-long court battle. At issue was whether Dr. Hines was violating Texas law requiring an in-person visit prior to providing medical advice over the internet, or whether his communications were protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court, which decided in favor of Dr. Hines, stated in its September decision that the State of Texas was directly regulating Dr. Hines’ speech and that the in-person exam requirement failed to survive even intermediate scrutiny.