Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds.
THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
About 10 years ago, I and many others, started talking about how care delivery enabled by connected health should be an ideal strategy in the world of value-based (VB) reimbursement. To date, there have been just a few instances where this has come to pass. Most relevant is Kaiser Permanente, where > 50% of patient interactions are virtual. Unfortunately, there are few other examples of organizations that have invested heavily in connected health and state publicly that it represents a strategy for success in a value-based world.
Image courtesy of National Telehealth Policy Resource Center
By contrast, in the past decade, there has been significant progress in payer reimbursement for telehealth as a service (fee-for-service [FFS] payments). For example, 48 states now have Medicaid requirements for telehealth reimbursement (10 years ago it was about 25); 21 states have requirements for remote monitoring reimbursements; and 15 for store-and-forward telemedicine reimbursement. Currently, 33…
View original post 871 more words
Share this:
Filed under: iMBA, Inc. | 1 Comment »
The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants 