Finally, a Chance for Telemedicine to Shine in Medicare and Medicaid
This past week was big for telemedicine in public programs. Both telehealth and remote patient monitoring (RPM) are proven tools in the commercial marketplace, but reimbursement restrictions have made adoption in Medicare and Medicaid pretty close to non-existent. It is still essential to pass legislation to fix outdated legal barriers in these programs. However, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) created opportunities this week to demonstrate how valuable telehealth and RPM can be to the health care of millions of seniors and low-income Americans.
In the commercial market, telehealth is used for convenience and after-hours care that can substitute for more expensive and time consuming in-person options. To date, RPM has largely been used to avoid hospital re-admissions and improve chronic disease management. The new rules and programs released by CMS open the door to showing how these tools can help achieve the important goals of patient engagement, care coordination, expanded access to care and population health management driven by primary care providers.
Door #1: Comprehensive Primary Care + model (CPC+). This alternative payment model is aimed at supporting primary care practitioners in delivering “advanced” primary care. It is a multi-payer initiative that will impact up to 3.5 million Medicare FFS beneficiaries, as well as millions of other Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, and commercial patients.
Primary care practitioners will be paid a non-visit based, risk-adjusted per beneficiary per month (PBPM) care management fee to help ensure services are “accessible, responsive to an individual’s preference, and patients can take advantage of enhanced in-person hours and 24/7 telephone or electronic access.”
Practices must also ensure that care is “coordinated across the health care system,” patients receive “timely” follow-up after emergency room or hospital visits and that care is “patient-centered.” Telemedicine achieves all of these goals. Since primary care practices will receive a care management fee, they have flexibility on where they can make their investments. That funding won’t be subject to the legal restrictions around telehealth or the lack of payment for RPM.
Door #2: Medicaid and CHIP Managed Care Rule. The final rule allows telemedicine to be used to meet network adequacy requirements in Medicaid. Before this rule, Medicaid managed care network adequacy regulation relied heavily on attestations and certifications from states. Now, states will have to develop time and distance standards and hold managed care plans accountable. Given how difficult it can be to find medical practitioners willing to accept Medicaid, telemedicine will be important to ensuring compliance with network adequacy.
Door #3: Medicare and CHIP Access and Re-authorization Act (MACRA) proposed rule. CMS moves physicians, nurses and other practitioners into value-based care by measuring care in four categories– quality, cost (new resource use), clinical practice improvement activities, and advancing care information (new meaningful use). The alternative is moving into an “advanced alternative payment model.” Telehealth figures prominently in assisting practitioners fulfill clinical practice improvement activities. It is mentioned explicitly as a way to expand practice access and manage patients who receive the drug warfarin. The tools can also apply in meeting practice improvement activities in the population management, patient engagement and care coordination categories. Also, telehealth services are categorized as “patient facing.”
The possibilities for more adoption in Medicare and Medicaid through these avenues is exciting. However, billing for telehealth and RPM services in Medicare and Medicaid remains difficult. We still need legislation to update the statute governing the these programs, but CMS’s efforts using existing authority are a step in the right direction.
Effectiveness of Remote Patient Monitoring After Discharge of Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure: The Better Effectiveness After Transition — Heart Failure (BEAT-HF) Randomized Clinical Trial
Effectiveness of Remote Patient Monitoring After Discharge of Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure: The Better Effectiveness After Transition — Heart Failure (BEAT-HF) Randomized Clinical Trial
Importance: It remains unclear whether telemonitoring approaches provide benefits for patients with heart failure (HF) after hospitalization.
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a care transition intervention using remote patient monitoring in reducing 180-day all-cause readmissions among a broad population of older adults hospitalized with HF.
Design, setting, and participants: We randomized 1437 patients hospitalized for HF between October 12, 2011, and September 30, 2013, to the intervention arm (715 patients) or to the usual care arm (722 patients) of the Better Effectiveness After Transition-Heart Failure (BEAT-HF) study and observed them for 180 days. The dates of our study analysis were March 30, 2014, to October 1, 2015. The setting was 6 academic medical centers in California. Participants were hospitalized individuals 50 years or older who received active treatment for decompensated HF.
Interventions: The intervention combined health coaching telephone calls and telemonitoring. Telemonitoring used electronic equipment that collected daily information about blood pressure, heart rate, symptoms, and weight. Centralized registered nurses conducted telemonitoring reviews, protocolized actions, and telephone calls.
Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was readmission for any cause within 180 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes were all-cause readmission within 30 days, all-cause mortality at 30 and 180 days, and quality of life at 30 and 180 days.
Results: Among 1437 participants, the median age was 73 years. Overall, 46.2% (664 of 1437) were female, and 22.0% (316 of 1437) were African American. The intervention and usual care groups did not differ significantly in readmissions for any cause 180 days after discharge, which occurred in 50.8% (363 of 715) and 49.2% (355 of 722) of patients, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P = .74). In secondary analyses, there were no significant differences in 30-day readmission or 180-day mortality, but there was a significant difference in 180-day quality of life between the intervention and usual care groups. No adverse events were reported.
Conclusions and relevance: Among patients hospitalized for HF, combined health coaching telephone calls and telemonitoring did not reduce 180-day readmissions.
Finally, a Real Chance for Change in Medicare Related to Telehealth & Remote Monitoring
February 3, 2016 | Krista Drobac, Executive Director of the Alliance for Connected Care
Today represents the first real chance we have had to change Medicare payment policy for telehealth and remote patient monitoring. While the commercial market adopts these tools at a rapid rate, there is virtually no access for seniors in Medicare. This issue got a powerful boost this morning with the introduction of the CONNECT for Health Act in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives.
Six bipartisan U.S. Senators, including three Committee chairman, and four U.S. Representatives on committees of jurisdiction, came together to introduce a bill that has been endorsed by more than 50 groups, including AARP, the American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the American Heart Association and more.
The CONNECT for Health Act, which is led in the Senate by Senators Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Roger Wicker (R-MS), and in the House by Representatives Diane Black (R-TN) and Peter Welch (D-VT), is a measured approach that lifts Medicare’s outdated restrictions on the use of telehealth, provides resources for remote patient monitoring technology for patients with chronic conditions, ensures new payment models will include these tools, makes these technologies part of Medicare Advantage, and addresses specific challenges related to stroke and dialysis.
Telehealth and remote monitoring are important for achieving the goals of value-based care, providing more access to primary care and behavioral health, improving chronic care management and advancing patient engagement. Patients with commercial coverage have access to these tools through their employers, health plans or health system. The evidence from their usage proves that telehealth and remote monitoring can move our health care system toward better care at lower costs.
According to an independent analysis from Avalere Health, the CONNECT for Health Act will decrease federal spending by $1.8 billion over the next ten-year period. In addition, the study estimates an immediate impact improving patient access with nearly 8.2 million Medicare beneficiaries receiving telemedicine and remote patient monitoring services through a demonstration waiver program by 2017.
It is long overdue for Congress to modernize care and access for all Medicare beneficiaries.
Diverse Group of Patients, Providers, Industry Applaud Consensus Approach to Telemedicine in Medicare
February 3, 2016 – Today, a diverse group of patient, provider and industry groups applauded the introduction of the CONNECT for Health Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation introduced by Senators Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) that lifts Medicare’s outdated restrictions on the use of telehealth and provides a benefit for remote patient monitoring. Organizations as diverse as AARP, the American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans and the American Heart Association came to support the CONNECT for Health Act as it represents the first time in more than a decade that consensus has been reached on how to modernize Medicare’s approach to remote patient care. [more…]
Sustained efficacy of pulmonary artery pressure to guide adjustment of chronic heart failure therapy: complete follow-up results from the CHAMPION randomised trial
Sustained efficacy of pulmonary artery pressure to guide adjustment of chronic heart failure therapy: complete follow-up results from the CHAMPION randomised trial
Background: In the CHAMPION trial, significant reductions in admissions to hospital for heart failure were seen after 6 months of pulmonary artery pressure guided management compared with usual care. We examine the extended efficacy of this strategy over 18 months of randomised follow-up and the clinical effect of open access to pressure information for an additional 13 months in patients formerly in the control group.
Methods: The CHAMPION trial was a prospective, parallel, single-blinded, multicentre study that enrolled participants with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III heart failure symptoms and a previous admission to hospital. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by centre in block sizes of four by a secure validated computerised randomisation system to either the treatment group, in which daily uploaded pulmonary artery pressures were used to guide medical therapy, or to the control group, in which daily uploaded pressures were not made available to investigators. Patients in the control group received all standard medical, device, and disease management strategies available. Patients then remained masked in their randomised study group until the last patient enrolled completed at least 6 months of study follow-up (randomised access period) for an average of 18 months. During the randomised access period, patients in the treatment group were managed with pulmonary artery pressure and patients in the control group had usual care only. At the conclusion of randomised access, investigators had access to pulmonary artery pressure for all patients (open access period) averaging 13 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was the rate of hospital admissions between the treatment group and control group in both the randomised access and open access periods. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00531661.
Findings: Between Sept 6, 2007, and Oct 7, 2009, 550 patients were randomly assigned to either the treatment group (n=270) or to the control group (n=280). 347 patients (177 in the former treatment group and 170 in the former control group) completed the randomised access period in August, 2010, and transitioned to the open access period which ended April 30, 2012. Over the randomised access period, rates of admissions to hospital for heart failure were reduced in the treatment group by 33% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·55-0·80]; p<0·0001) compared with the control group. After pulmonary artery pressure information became available to guide therapy during open access (mean 13 months), rates of admissions to hospital for heart failure in the former control group were reduced by 48% (HR 0·52 [95% CI 0·40-0·69]; p<0·0001) compared with rates of admissions in the control group during randomised access. Eight (1%) device-related or system related complications and seven (1%) procedure-related adverse events were reported.
Interpretation: Management of NYHA Class III heart failure based on home transmission of pulmonary artery pressure with an implanted pressure sensor has significant long-term benefit in lowering hospital admission rates for heart failure.
Telemedicine fans point to CBO’s history of cost overestimates
Politico | December 21, 2015
Excerpt:
The Alliance for Connected Care, a two-year-old telemedicine lobbying group that’s been driving congressional interest in the industry, has produced multiple studies that it says show the technology can save Medicare money.