all doctors understand the importance of maximizing patient safety by adher- ing to scientific principles.”
TELADOC: PATIENTS NEED MORE ACCESS TO PRIMARY CARE Meredith Adams, of Dallas commu- nications agency FleishmanHillard, speaking on behalf of Teladoc, argues caring for patients without a face-to- face visit is common practice. “The reality is that doctors do prescribe medication without seeing a new pa- tient, and they do so safely,” she said. She says the appeals court’s rul-
ing in favor of Teladoc has no broader implications for the medical commu- nity. “The court’s ruling is a victory for Texas patients, who retain the ability to choose telehealth services and talk to a doctor when they are unable to see their own physician, meeting the needs of our population,” she said. Ms. Adams says Teladoc is de- signed to supplement — not replace
— primary care physicians. “Without this option, what will the mom with a feverish child do in the middle of the night? Or the business traveler who comes down with the flu? The ER should not be their only choice for treatment,” she said. Ms. Adams also notes the shortage
of primary care physicians in Texas and nationwide is expected to worsen. Last year, she says, Teladoc conduct- ed nearly 300,000 consults across the United States with a 91-percent reso- lution rate. “Teladoc has never had a malprac- tice claim,” she added. Teladoc does have backing from a
number of political heavy-hitters. The company is a board member of the Alliance for Connected Care, which advocates telehealth reform and re- mote patient monitoring. Other board members of the alliance include Veri- zon, CVS, and Walgreens. Former U.S. Senate Majority Leaders Tom Daschle and Trent Lott and former Sen. John Breaux are leaders in the alliance. For more information, visit
www.connec
twithcare.org.
TELEMEDICINE ACTIONS AROUND THE NATION
Texas is not the only state grappling with the intricacies of telemedicine. Other state courts and legislatures are also fine-tuning the safest and most eficient ways to use new technology to help physicians care for patients. Senate Bill 478, which is up for debate in the Florida Legis-
lature, would clarify that the standards of care for physicians practicing telemedicine are the same as for physicians caring for patients in person. The bill also says a physician may conduct a patient evaluation via telemedicine and treat the patient without researching the patient’s medical history or meeting with the patient in person. Finally, the bill would let physicians prescribe controlled substances via telemedicine as long as they don’t prescribe the drug for chronic, nonma- lignant pain. For more on SB 478, visit tma.tips/FloridaSB478. House Bill 1029 before the Colorado Legislature would
require carriers to pay physicians for telemedicine care for a patient in a county with more than 150,000 people. (Currently, payment is required only for patients in more rural counties.) The bill would also forbid an insurance plan from requiring in-person care when telemedicine is appropriate. The bill would also prohibit insurance carriers from charging more for telemedicine services. To read the legislation, visit tma.tips /ColoradoHB1029. Senate Bill 5175 in Washington State would guarantee all medically necessary telemedicine services are reimbursable under public employee benefit plans, health carriers, and managed care organizations. For more about SB 5175, visit tma.tips/WashSB5175. Similarly, Senate Bill 144 in Oregon would expand insur-
ance coverage to telemedicine services. Currently, Oregon law requires insurance coverage only for telemedicine ser- vices that take place in a medical facility. For more on SB 144, visit tma.tips/OregonSB144.
April 2015 TEXAS MEDICINE 47
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68