Senator Roberts Discusses the Importance of Telehealth During HELP Hearing

Statement

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) today discussed the importance of telehealth as part of the COVID-19 response and the future of health care delivery in rural areas during a Senate Health, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing titled, "Telehealth: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic."

"I have long been a supporter of telehealth and its unique opportunities for health care providers and patients, especially in rural areas," said Sen. Roberts. "The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly increased the amount of doctor's visits taking place through telehealth, and I hope it paves the way for strengthening telehealth services in the future."

Video of Sen. Roberts' remarks available here.

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thanks to all of the witnesses for being here this morning. This is a topic of great importance both as part of the COVID-19 response and -- perhaps even more so -- for the future of health care delivery, particularly in rural areas.

I would like to ask each one of you about "parity" in telehealth, meaning whether reimbursement for telehealth services is the same as reimbursement for face-to-face services.

If they were reimbursed equally, how do you expect that would affect the utilization of telehealth services?
And what would be the benefits to the patients and providers?

As I understand, cost can be a barrier for providers to invest in telehealth services and technology.

Dr. Kvedar, how would payment parity affect this dynamic? Could it be an incentive for health systems to invest more in outpatient telehealth services?

I'm also curious about the payer side.

Dr. Willis, how have insurance companies responded to the increased demand in telehealth and how would they respond if there was more parity between telehealth and face-to-face reimbursement?
When a patient receives telehealth care from a provider who is not their usual source of care, how are health plans ensuring that information about that care is communicated back to the patient's primary care physician?

Dr. Rheuban, I'm also interested in the use of audio-only telehealth, particularly in rural areas.

Rural broadband continues to be a challenge -- how could audio-only visits help expand access to care in places where this is an issue?

I've heard some concerns about the impact of reimbursing for audio-only visits potentially changing the relationships many patients have with their doctors.

Would this mean that patients wouldn't be able to call up their doctors and ask a question without worrying about cost sharing?

As you know, one of the main questions facing us is "what do we do about the recent changes in telehealth policy once the pandemic is over?" Of course, many of these changes have been necessary both to allow providers to continue operating and to ensure patients have access to care during the pandemic.

I would like to not only hear about what we can do to strengthen telehealth going forward for regular health care delivery purposes, but also what -- if anything -- we should be thinking about when it comes to allowing health systems and providers to respond to future emergency scenarios.

For each witness, are there certain telehealth flexibilities that don't currently exist that we should consider to best equip states and providers for preparing for the next public health emergency?
For anyone would like to respond, can you talk about the impacts that the telehealth flexibilities are having in post-acute, long-term and end-of-life care?

I yield back.

Source