Contact
Boston
Providence
March 26, 2020
Massachusetts and the Federal Government Expand Telemedicine Services and Coverage in Response to COVID-19
In conjunction with advisories to avoid healthcare facilities and to remain at home as much as possible, both the federal and Massachusetts governments have recently issued orders to promote the use of telehealth, or telemedicine, services to reduce in-person interaction and meet healthcare needs. Just last week in response to the evolving coronavirus pandemic, the Trump Administration expanded Medicare coverage for telehealth services, while Governor Baker issued an executive order requiring commercial payors to cover medically necessary telehealth services rendered virtually, as if the services were rendered in-person. Governor Baker’s order requires insurers to adopt temporary telehealth policies similar to those adopted by MassHealth earlier this week. To address immediate and relentless demands on the health care sector, providers in Massachusetts can render reimbursable telehealth services for a spectrum of treatments and through a variety of technologies for the duration of the public health emergency.
Medicare Coverage:
On March 17, 2020, President Trump announced an expansion of telehealth benefits for Medicare beneficiaries for the duration of the COVID-19 outbreak. This action promotes social-distancing and minimizes non-essential, face-to-face interaction, especially for high-risk individuals.
For services beginning March 6, 2020, requirements for Medicare-reimbursable telehealth services have been relaxed pursuant to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary’s authorization of a 1135 waiver and the enactment of the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act.
Significant areas expanded by the waiver include:
• Service Expansion: Telehealth is no longer reserved predominantly for routine visits. Services such as routine visits, mental health counseling, and preventative health screenings may be offered as a covered telehealth service.
• Elimination of Onsite Requirement: Onsite requirements limiting beneficiaries to those located in certain healthcare facilities in rural areas have been expanded. A beneficiary may now receive telehealth services in any healthcare facility, or in the beneficiary’s home, regardless of location, so long as it differs from the provider’s location.
• New Modalities: Despite previous modality limitations, telehealth services may now be offered through audio-visual communication tools such as a personal telephone with audio-visual capability (i.e. – FaceTime on an iPhone) or web-based platforms (i.e. – Skype). HIPAA enforcement will be less strict for providers administering telehealth services in good faith through HIPAA non-compliant platforms at this time.
• No Existing Patient Relationship Required: Despite the original requirement that a beneficiary have received prior in-person care from a provider before initiating telehealth services, HHS announced it will not audit providers to ensure a relationship existed for the duration of the COVID-19 outbreak.
The waiver does not change the types of providers qualified to bill Medicare for telehealth services. Notably, the HHS Office of the Inspector General is permitting greater flexibility for providers to reduce or waive cost-sharing for services paid by federal programs.
The waiver, and subsequent expansion of Medicare-reimbursable telehealth, is in effect for the duration of the public health emergency.
For more information regarding President Trump’s announcement, see the CMS Press Release.
For more information on Medicare-reimbursable telehealth services, see the CMS Fact Sheet.
For more information detailing the terms of the waiver, see the CMS Frequently Asked Questions.
MassHealth (Medicaid) Coverage:
While MassHealth has previously considered telehealth to be an acceptable modality for the purposes of behavioral health treatment, the MassHealth All Provider Bulletin 289 (Bulletin 289) released last week expands telehealth coverage to all providers acting within their licensed scope of practice. Starting April 1, 2020, healthcare providers can bill MassHealth for clinically appropriate and medically necessary telehealth services beginning March 12, 2020. MassHealth coverage for telehealth services applies to members enrolled in fee-for-service and Primary Care Clinician plans or a Primary Care ACO.
The traditional definition of “telemedicine” under M.G.L. c. 175, § 47BB excludes “audio-only telephone, facsimile machine or e-mail” from permissible delivery mechanisms. Bulletin 289, however, does not mention any limitations on the technology a provider may use in rendering telehealth services. Telephone and live video are two options considered permissible in the Bulletin. Further, similar to the Medicare expansion, an initial in-person evaluation prior to commencing telehealth services will not be required at this time.
Additionally, physicians, acute outpatient hospitals, community health centers, outpatient behavioral health providers, and early intervention providers can seek MassHealth reimbursement for telephone evaluations.
Guidelines for rendering covered services through telehealth are included as Appendix A of Bulletin 289. The specific requirements for telehealth encounters are excerpted below:
- Providers must properly identify the patient using, at a minimum, the patient's name, date of birth, and MassHealth ID.
- Providers must disclose and validate the provider's identity and credentials, such as the provider's license, title, and, if applicable, specialty and board certifications.
- For an initial appointment with a new patient, the provider must review the patient's relevant medical history and any available medical records with the patient before initiating the delivery of the service.
- For existing provider-patient relationships, the provider must review the patient's medical history and any available medical records with the patient during the service.
- Prior to each patient appointment, the provider must ensure that the provider is able to deliver the service to the same standard of care and in compliance with licensure regulations and requirements, programmatic regulations, and performance specifications related to the service (e.g., accessibility and communication access) using telehealth as is applicable to the delivery of the services in person. If the provider cannot meet this standard of care or other requirements, the provider must direct the patient to seek in-person care. The provider must make this determination prior to the delivery of each service.
- To the extent feasible, providers must ensure the same rights to confidentiality and security as provided in face-to-face services. Providers must inform members of any relevant privacy considerations.
- Providers must follow consent and patient information protocols consistent with those followed during in-person visits.
- Providers must inform patients of the location of the provider rendering services via telehealth (i.e., distant site) and obtain the location of the patient (i.e., originating site).
- The provider must inform the patient of how the patient can see a clinician in-person in the event of an emergency or as otherwise needed.
Essentially, as long as providers are acting in compliance with licensure requirements and can provide patients with the same standard of care as if in-person, MassHealth will cover telehealth services deemed clinically appropriate and medically necessary regardless of previous limitations on technology and treatment.
For more information on MassHealth’s coverage of telehealth services, see the MassHealth All Provider Bulletin 289.
Commercial Payor Coverage:
On March 15, 2020, Governor Baker executed an “Order Expanding Access to Telehealth Services and To Protect Health Care Providers.” This Order requires the Group Insurance Commission, all commercial health insurers, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and HMOs regulated by the Division of Insurance to permit all in-network providers to deliver medically necessary telehealth services and reimburse the services rendered. The Order prohibits payors from imposing requirements any more stringent than those imposed in Bulletin 289, described above. Additionally, the Order requires insurers to waive co-pays, deductibles, and coinsurance, as well as prior authorization requirements, for telehealth services related to COVID-19. While none of the major Massachusetts commercial payors have released guidelines or new provider requirements in light of Governor Baker’s Order at present, the requirements established by MassHealth for telehealth encounters are as stringent as providers should expect from a commercial payor.
For more information regarding telehealth coverage required of commercial payors, see Governor Baker’s Executive Order.
Sydney Sachs, a law clerk with Summit Health Law Partners, assisted with this article. She is a third-year student at Boston University School of Law where she is Executive Editor for Management of the Review of Banking & Financial Law. You can find her on LinkedIn.
Sign up for email alerts
© 2021 | website: visual dialogue
News
Health Law
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
June 03, 2020
Adelita Orefice, Esq. Honored by Rhode Island Monthly
-
April 17, 2020
Healthcare fraud warning from the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney arising out of COVID-19
-
April 10, 2020
Financial Solutions for Small Businesses Disrupted by COVID-19
-
March 23, 2020
COVID-19 Update for Our Clients
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
November 06, 2018
Sweeping New Opioid Law Extends Anti-Kickback Liability to Private Insurance Market in Three Areas
-
November 05, 2018
Adelita Orefice Earns Certification in Healthcare Compliance
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
September 18, 2018
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
DPH releases proposed amendments to Determination of Need regulation
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
October 24, 2017
| Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
Legal Issues and the Aging Physician
-
October 11, 2017
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health Presentation on DoN Regulations
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
February 16, 2017
| Diane Moes
The ACA May Be in Jeopardy, but MACRA Isn’t Likely to Go Away
-
January 16, 2017
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
DPH Adopts New Determination of Need Regulations
-
November 09, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Preliminary Injunction Temporarily Halts Implementation of Final Rule Prohibiting Pre-Dispute Arbitration Contracts in LTC Facilities
-
October 24, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Nursing Facilities Sue HHS to Block Ban on Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
October 17, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
HHS Prohibits Long-Term Care Facilities from Using Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 29, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Announces Major Determination of Need Regulatory Reform Initiative
-
August 29, 2016
New MA Prescription Monitoring Program Goes Live August 22, 2016
-
August 15, 2016
| Crystal Bloom, Amanda Beauregard
OPPS 2017 – Implementation of Section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
July 20, 2016
| Kelly McGee, Adelita Orefice
Rhode Island Prohibits Physician Non-Competes
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
May 17, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Noncompliance with Security Deposit Law Could Be a Defense to Eviction
-
April 19, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
Update Regarding DPH Increased Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
April 11, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
DPH Strengthens Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
March 23, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Phase 2 HIPAA Compliance Audits Set To Begin
-
March 22, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Failure to execute HIPAA business associate agreement and conduct risk analysis costs health system $1.55M
-
February 11, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Proposed Rule Modifies 42 CFR Part 2, the Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Regulations
-
November 16, 2015
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Nicole Sexton
Medicare Hospital Reimbursement Changes
-
October 26, 2015
Diane Moes named one of Mass Lawyers Weekly’s “Top Women of Law”
-
June 12, 2015
OIG Fraud Alert Warns Doctors That They Will Be Personally Accountable for Violations of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
-
May 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Long Term Care Facility Regulatory Update
-
April 23, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health - new process for the addition of licensed mobile or portable health care units
-
April 21, 2015
| Paul Barrett, Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
OIG Releases Compliance And Oversight Guide for Healthcare Boards
-
April 20, 2015
| Andrew Levine,
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Revamps Application Process for Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
-
April 16, 2015
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Proposed Legislation Will Increase Legal Authority of Health Policy Commission and Attorney General
-
March 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Health Policy Commission Releases Proposed Regulation Concerning Nurse-to-Patient Ratios | Public hearings scheduled for late March and early April
-
March 06, 2015
| Robert Blaisdell
Court Holds Officers and Directors of Non-Profit Healthcare Facility Personally Liable to Creditors for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-
September 17, 2014
| Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, Kathleen Harrell
Legal Issues Associated with MA Registered Marijuana Dispensaries: An article by Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, and Kathleen Harrell
-
July 14, 2014
| Andrew Levine
Important Compounding Pharmacy Law Empowers Board of Registration in Pharmacy
-
June 20, 2014
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Public Health Council Approves Amendments to Determination of Need Regulations
-
June 03, 2014
| Diane Moes
U.S. District Court Ruling Vacating HRSA’s 340B Program Orphan Drug Exclusion Rule Casts Uncertainty on Forthcoming "Mega-Rule"
-
May 28, 2014
| Andrew Levine
New Guidelines for Dementia Special Care Unit Regulations
-
January 10, 2014
| Andrew Levine
MassHealth Changes regulations to comply with Affordable Care Act
Litigation
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
May 12, 2020
First Federal Indictment Arising Out of Fraudulent Applications for Paycheck Protection Program Loans Highlights Focus on COVID-19 Related Investigations
-
April 30, 2020
Impact of COVID-19 on Reporting Foreign Components
-
March 27, 2020
| Michelle Peirce
Scam Warning for Massachusetts Physicians
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
April 05, 2018
In Russia probe, the difference between ‘target’ and ‘subject’ matters a great deal
-
February 22, 2018
Landmark Supreme Court Decision Substantially Narrows the Applicability of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
-
June 01, 2016
How Recent Changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “White Collar” Exemptions May Affect Your Small Business
-
March 25, 2015
Avoiding Securities Fraud Prosecution: Using the SEC’s 2015 examination priorities as a compliance roadmap when dealing with retail investors.
-
December 29, 2014
| Bruce Singal
Was the Ferguson grand jury rigged?
-
March 26, 2014
Employer Avoids Discrimination Trial Thanks to Robust Investigation and Documentation Policies
-
February 13, 2014
| Michelle Peirce
Shielding Companies Against Whistleblower Suits
-
March 01, 2010
Trials Facing Women Litigators and Tips For Success: Michelle Peirce
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
Corporate
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
March 16, 2018
Massachusetts Equal Pay Act: 5 Things Every Employer Should Do Before It Takes Effect On July 1, 2018
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
Research Misconduct
-
May 18, 2020
Why Grantees Must be Prepared for Heightened Scrutiny of Conflicts of Interest in Foreign Support for US Research
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
What is Research Misconduct and Why Should I Care?
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
This website presents general information about Barrett & Singal and is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Please note that contacting Barrett & Singal by email, telephone or facsimile will not establish an attorney-client relationship, obligate us to act as your attorney or impose an obligation on either the law firm or the receiving lawyer to keep the transmitted information confidential. Completion of Barrett & Singal’s new client intake protocol, including without limitation the firm’s conflicts checking process and an engagement letter, is necessary to establish an attorney-client relationship. Absent a current attorney-client relationship with Barrett & Singal, any information or documents communicated or transmitted by you to Barrett & Singal will not be treated as confidential, secret or protected in any way. If you are not a current client of Barrett & Singal, please do not send any confidential information to us through this web site or otherwise concerning any potential or actual legal matter you have. Before providing any confidential information to us, you must obtain permission to do so from one of the firm’s lawyers. By clicking "Accept," you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already represent you or unless we have agreed to receive limited confidential material/information from you as a prospective client.
If you would like to discuss becoming a client, please contact one of our attorneys to arrange for a meeting or telephone conference. If you wish to disclose confidential information to a lawyer in the firm before an attorney-client relationship is established, the protections that the law firm will provide to such information from a prospective client should be discussed with the firm attorney before such information is submitted. Thank you for your interest in Barrett & Singal.