Ken Terry

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 80% of US counties have no infectious disease (ID) specialists, and 80% of counties in the top quartile of COVID-19 cases have no ID physicians or a below-average ratio of ID specialists to the population, according to a study published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Although the majority of these counties are rural, nearly two-thirds of Americans live in the 80% of counties that have a below-average ID specialist density or no access to ID physicians at all.

There are no data yet on the association between ID physician care and COVID-19 outcomes, the researchers note. “However, for many other infectious diseases, a robust evidence base supports the association between ID physician intervention and improved outcomes, including lower mortality, shorter length of stay, fewer readmissions, and lower total health care spending,” the authors explain.

The national average density of ID specialists was 1.76 ID physicians per 100,000 people in 2017. However, the authors say this distribution “was geographically skewed”: Of the 3142 US counties, 331 (10.5%) had above-average ID physician densities and 312 (9.9%) had below-average ID physician densities. Not a single ID physician practiced in the other 2499 counties.

A US map accompanying the study shows the distribution of ID specialists across the country. The areas with the most ID specialists were in the Northeast and Florida. Below-average densities of ID physicians were shown in the Southwest and on the West Coast. Large swathes of the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West had no ID specialists.

Among the 785 counties with the highest quartile of COVID-19 burden as of mid-May, 147 (18.7%) and 117 (14.9%) had above- and below-average ID physician densities, respectively. More than two-thirds (521) of these counties had no ID specialist coverage.

Although the literature does not indicate the “right” ratio of ID specialists to a population, the authors conclude, “our current distribution during pandemic times is probably far too sparse. The deficits in our ID physician workforce today have left us poorly prepared for the unprecedented demand ahead.”

The overall shortage of ID specialists is becoming more severe, the researchers note. In 2019 to 2020, ID fellowship programs had fewer than one applicant for every open position, on average. Thirty-eight percent of ID programs were unable to fill their training slots, and 19% could fill no slots at all.

This deficit of interest in the ID field continues a long-term trend. A 2019 Merritt Hawkins report found that between the 2009-2010 and 2016-2017 fellowship matches the number of adult ID programs filling all their positions dropped by 41% and the number of applicants decreased by 31%, according to Medscape Medical News.

The authors tie the decline of interest in the field to the compensation of ID specialists, which is lower than that of procedural specialists. Because their field focuses on cognitive skills, these highly trained physicians are paid about the same as primary care physicians.

Loan Repayment

Young physicians have an average of $200,000 in loans when they graduate from medical school, coauthor Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said in an interview. With the fellowship training required to become an infectious disease specialist, they fall even further in debt. In effect, they earn less than primary care doctors do, she said.

Consequently, any strategy to bolster the ID specialist workforce should include a government loan repayment program, Dr. Walensky explained, adding that perhaps the loan repayment could be tied to practicing in underserved areas where ID specialists are especially needed.

Telehealth is the key to stretching the resources of ID specialists for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, she said. “The way to expand [the specialty] in the short run is to reimburse for telehealth.”

Dr. Walensky is also concerned about the rollback of funding for infectious disease research. “I have a whole corps of researchers ... who are really worried about their research future,” she said. “These are Harvard scientists who don’t know if they’ll be funded. If they’re not, we could lose a whole generation of researchers, and where will we be 10-15 years from now?”

Dr. Walensky is Chief of the Infectious Diseases Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Frontline Roles

On the front line of fighting COVID-19 today, ID specialists are also critical to the research required to create a vaccine and find new treatments, Dr. Walensky explained. They are knowledgeable about current drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and can set up protocols for clinical trials.

At Massachusetts General Hospital, she continued, she and her colleagues developed infectious disease control policies to keep patients and health workers safe; they also triage patients to determine which ones should be tested for COVID-19 and give advice to treating doctors when patients who appear to have COVID-19 test negative. In addition, ID specialists are skilled in the management of complex cases, such as COVID patients who have comorbidities.

“We’re not [gastrointestinal] docs or cardiology docs,” Dr. Walensky noted. “We don’t manage a single organ system. We’re trained to worry about the entire patient. Given that this disease manifests itself in so many different ways to so many different patients and affects many different organs that nobody was anticipating — that’s our sweet spot in terms of how we care for patients.”

Dr. Walensky reports grants from Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholar Award, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 80% of US counties have no infectious disease (ID) specialists, and 80% of counties in the top quartile of COVID-19 cases have no ID physicians or a below-average ratio of ID specialists to the population, according to a study published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Although the majority of these counties are rural, nearly two-thirds of Americans live in the 80% of counties that have a below-average ID specialist density or no access to ID physicians at all.

There are no data yet on the association between ID physician care and COVID-19 outcomes, the researchers note. “However, for many other infectious diseases, a robust evidence base supports the association between ID physician intervention and improved outcomes, including lower mortality, shorter length of stay, fewer readmissions, and lower total health care spending,” the authors explain.

The national average density of ID specialists was 1.76 ID physicians per 100,000 people in 2017. However, the authors say this distribution “was geographically skewed”: Of the 3142 US counties, 331 (10.5%) had above-average ID physician densities and 312 (9.9%) had below-average ID physician densities. Not a single ID physician practiced in the other 2499 counties.

A US map accompanying the study shows the distribution of ID specialists across the country. The areas with the most ID specialists were in the Northeast and Florida. Below-average densities of ID physicians were shown in the Southwest and on the West Coast. Large swathes of the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West had no ID specialists.

Among the 785 counties with the highest quartile of COVID-19 burden as of mid-May, 147 (18.7%) and 117 (14.9%) had above- and below-average ID physician densities, respectively. More than two-thirds (521) of these counties had no ID specialist coverage.

Although the literature does not indicate the “right” ratio of ID specialists to a population, the authors conclude, “our current distribution during pandemic times is probably far too sparse. The deficits in our ID physician workforce today have left us poorly prepared for the unprecedented demand ahead.”

The overall shortage of ID specialists is becoming more severe, the researchers note. In 2019 to 2020, ID fellowship programs had fewer than one applicant for every open position, on average. Thirty-eight percent of ID programs were unable to fill their training slots, and 19% could fill no slots at all.

This deficit of interest in the ID field continues a long-term trend. A 2019 Merritt Hawkins report found that between the 2009-2010 and 2016-2017 fellowship matches the number of adult ID programs filling all their positions dropped by 41% and the number of applicants decreased by 31%, according to Medscape Medical News.

The authors tie the decline of interest in the field to the compensation of ID specialists, which is lower than that of procedural specialists. Because their field focuses on cognitive skills, these highly trained physicians are paid about the same as primary care physicians.

Loan Repayment

Young physicians have an average of $200,000 in loans when they graduate from medical school, coauthor Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said in an interview. With the fellowship training required to become an infectious disease specialist, they fall even further in debt. In effect, they earn less than primary care doctors do, she said.

Consequently, any strategy to bolster the ID specialist workforce should include a government loan repayment program, Dr. Walensky explained, adding that perhaps the loan repayment could be tied to practicing in underserved areas where ID specialists are especially needed.

Telehealth is the key to stretching the resources of ID specialists for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, she said. “The way to expand [the specialty] in the short run is to reimburse for telehealth.”

Dr. Walensky is also concerned about the rollback of funding for infectious disease research. “I have a whole corps of researchers ... who are really worried about their research future,” she said. “These are Harvard scientists who don’t know if they’ll be funded. If they’re not, we could lose a whole generation of researchers, and where will we be 10-15 years from now?”

Dr. Walensky is Chief of the Infectious Diseases Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Frontline Roles

On the front line of fighting COVID-19 today, ID specialists are also critical to the research required to create a vaccine and find new treatments, Dr. Walensky explained. They are knowledgeable about current drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and can set up protocols for clinical trials.

At Massachusetts General Hospital, she continued, she and her colleagues developed infectious disease control policies to keep patients and health workers safe; they also triage patients to determine which ones should be tested for COVID-19 and give advice to treating doctors when patients who appear to have COVID-19 test negative. In addition, ID specialists are skilled in the management of complex cases, such as COVID patients who have comorbidities.

“We’re not [gastrointestinal] docs or cardiology docs,” Dr. Walensky noted. “We don’t manage a single organ system. We’re trained to worry about the entire patient. Given that this disease manifests itself in so many different ways to so many different patients and affects many different organs that nobody was anticipating — that’s our sweet spot in terms of how we care for patients.”

Dr. Walensky reports grants from Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholar Award, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 80% of US counties have no infectious disease (ID) specialists, and 80% of counties in the top quartile of COVID-19 cases have no ID physicians or a below-average ratio of ID specialists to the population, according to a study published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Although the majority of these counties are rural, nearly two-thirds of Americans live in the 80% of counties that have a below-average ID specialist density or no access to ID physicians at all.

There are no data yet on the association between ID physician care and COVID-19 outcomes, the researchers note. “However, for many other infectious diseases, a robust evidence base supports the association between ID physician intervention and improved outcomes, including lower mortality, shorter length of stay, fewer readmissions, and lower total health care spending,” the authors explain.

The national average density of ID specialists was 1.76 ID physicians per 100,000 people in 2017. However, the authors say this distribution “was geographically skewed”: Of the 3142 US counties, 331 (10.5%) had above-average ID physician densities and 312 (9.9%) had below-average ID physician densities. Not a single ID physician practiced in the other 2499 counties.

A US map accompanying the study shows the distribution of ID specialists across the country. The areas with the most ID specialists were in the Northeast and Florida. Below-average densities of ID physicians were shown in the Southwest and on the West Coast. Large swathes of the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West had no ID specialists.

Among the 785 counties with the highest quartile of COVID-19 burden as of mid-May, 147 (18.7%) and 117 (14.9%) had above- and below-average ID physician densities, respectively. More than two-thirds (521) of these counties had no ID specialist coverage.

Although the literature does not indicate the “right” ratio of ID specialists to a population, the authors conclude, “our current distribution during pandemic times is probably far too sparse. The deficits in our ID physician workforce today have left us poorly prepared for the unprecedented demand ahead.”

The overall shortage of ID specialists is becoming more severe, the researchers note. In 2019 to 2020, ID fellowship programs had fewer than one applicant for every open position, on average. Thirty-eight percent of ID programs were unable to fill their training slots, and 19% could fill no slots at all.

This deficit of interest in the ID field continues a long-term trend. A 2019 Merritt Hawkins report found that between the 2009-2010 and 2016-2017 fellowship matches the number of adult ID programs filling all their positions dropped by 41% and the number of applicants decreased by 31%, according to Medscape Medical News.

The authors tie the decline of interest in the field to the compensation of ID specialists, which is lower than that of procedural specialists. Because their field focuses on cognitive skills, these highly trained physicians are paid about the same as primary care physicians.

Loan Repayment

Young physicians have an average of $200,000 in loans when they graduate from medical school, coauthor Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said in an interview. With the fellowship training required to become an infectious disease specialist, they fall even further in debt. In effect, they earn less than primary care doctors do, she said.

Consequently, any strategy to bolster the ID specialist workforce should include a government loan repayment program, Dr. Walensky explained, adding that perhaps the loan repayment could be tied to practicing in underserved areas where ID specialists are especially needed.

Telehealth is the key to stretching the resources of ID specialists for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, she said. “The way to expand [the specialty] in the short run is to reimburse for telehealth.”

Dr. Walensky is also concerned about the rollback of funding for infectious disease research. “I have a whole corps of researchers ... who are really worried about their research future,” she said. “These are Harvard scientists who don’t know if they’ll be funded. If they’re not, we could lose a whole generation of researchers, and where will we be 10-15 years from now?”

Dr. Walensky is Chief of the Infectious Diseases Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Frontline Roles

On the front line of fighting COVID-19 today, ID specialists are also critical to the research required to create a vaccine and find new treatments, Dr. Walensky explained. They are knowledgeable about current drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and can set up protocols for clinical trials.

At Massachusetts General Hospital, she continued, she and her colleagues developed infectious disease control policies to keep patients and health workers safe; they also triage patients to determine which ones should be tested for COVID-19 and give advice to treating doctors when patients who appear to have COVID-19 test negative. In addition, ID specialists are skilled in the management of complex cases, such as COVID patients who have comorbidities.

“We’re not [gastrointestinal] docs or cardiology docs,” Dr. Walensky noted. “We don’t manage a single organ system. We’re trained to worry about the entire patient. Given that this disease manifests itself in so many different ways to so many different patients and affects many different organs that nobody was anticipating — that’s our sweet spot in terms of how we care for patients.”

Dr. Walensky reports grants from Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholar Award, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care practices are facing an existential threat, and they need government help now if they are to survive.

That was the main message at a teleconference held on May 20 to announce the results of a study showing that outpatient visits have rebounded across the United States. Having dropped 60% from their prepandemic level in early April, office visits are now significantly higher but are still 30% less than the baseline, on average, according to new data from the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, and Phreesia, a health information technology firm.

The outpatient visits study shows that most of the recovery was attributable to a rise in in-person visits, not telehealth encounters, which have plateaued. The rebound was more pronounced in some regions, like the South and Southwest, than in others, such as New England and the Mid-Atlantic.

Primary care practices are now experiencing 25% fewer visits than they did in early March, the study shows. While some other specialties have seen a greater drop-off in visits, speakers at the news conference drew reporters’ attention to the financial plight of primary care.

“Primary care practices are in dire straits, and their ability to treat patients is under threat,” said Melinda Abrams, MS, senior vice president of delivery system reform and international innovations for the Commonwealth Fund. “In the long term, an investment in primary care will ensure we have primary care, because we are concerned about its collapse.”

Health policy experts from the Commonwealth Fund and other organizations, she said, propose that the next round of federal economic stimulus funding include recovery resources dedicated to primary care practices, especially small practices and those in underserved areas. She said the money should be distributed immediately through Medicare and Medicaid in supplemental monthly payments.

Up to now, Ms. Abrams said, no money in any of the federal rescue packages has been specifically earmarked for primary care.

Close permanently?

Farzad Mostashari, MD, CEO of Aledade and former national coordinator for health information technology at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, agreed primary care needs immediate help.

Aledade’s customers for population health management services, he noted, are some of the most forward-looking and technologically savvy primary care groups. “Nevertheless, those practices are suffering,” Dr. Mostashari said. “Many of them are at risk financially. There has been a massive 60%-70% drop in face-to-face visits. About 40% of visits are telehealth, but the practices are still down 30% or more in visits. And they’re losing ancillary revenues from procedures and labs.”

The financial devastation of the pandemic is causing some physicians to question whether they will be able to stay in practice. A recent survey from the California Healthcare Foundation found that a third of California primary care doctors are worried their practices will be forced to close permanently because of the financial impact of COVID-19. Many doctors said their practices had furloughed or laid off staff or that they’d been forced to take pay cuts.

Similarly, a recent survey by the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative found that 13% of practices predicted closure within the next month and that 20% have already had temporary closures. Forty-two percent of the practices have laid off or furloughed staff, and 51% are uncertain about their financial future through June.
 

Primary care is essential

A pandemic-related reduction in the number of primary care physicians would exacerbate what many observers view as a nationwide shortage of primary care. Right now, the health care system badly needs all the primary care doctors it has, Ms. Abrams and Dr. Mostashari said.

Decades of research have shown that strong primary care is associated with better outcomes, lower per capita costs, and greater equity, Ms. Abrams noted. In addition, she said, dedicated support for primary care during the pandemic will help ensure that doctors meet the needs of patients with chronic diseases so they don’t have to be hospitalized.

Moreover, with proper support, primary care physicians can expand COVID-19 testing “so we can reopen the economy and perhaps prevent or contain the second wave of the virus,” she said.

Dr. Mostashari pointed out that primary care providers are on the front line of the pandemic. Although much attention has been rightfully given to those who treat COVID-19 patients in hospitals, he observed, “before those patients are admitted, they need to see primary care physicians. ... We have to maintain the primary care first line of defense. When the CDC says if you’re having symptoms, call your doctor, someone has to pick up the phone at the other end.”

In addition, he said, “there’s a hidden pandemic of untreated chronic conditions we should all be worried about. We know primary care is important because if you don’t do prevention, you’ll pay the price in heart attacks and strokes and kidney failure, and we’ve seen a dramatic decline in primary care services. In New York City, some people who have avoided necessary care have had bad outcomes, including in-home cardiac death.”

Dr. Mostashari also argued that the negative financial impact of COVID-19 could lead to a further consolidation of the industry as health systems and private equity investors take over failing practices. Past experience suggests that that would result in “a lack of choice, a lack of competition, and a lack of access” in many cases, he said.

The best long-term solution, he said, is to pay primary care physicians capitation instead of on a fee-for-service basis so that they’re not dependent on income from face-to-face visits.

In the short term, however, they need direct cash payments, Dr. Mostashari said. He called on Congress to allocate at least $15 billion to bolster the viability of primary care practices.
 

Telehealth levels off

One of the key findings of the outpatient visits study is that telehealth encounters, after soaring in the early days of the pandemic, have leveled off. After hitting a peak of 14% of all visits in mid-April, telehealth visits now make up about 12% of the total.

Study coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, an associate professor of health policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said he’d expected the use of telehealth to continue rising. The fact that it hasn’t, he told reporters at the news conference, may be related to the different ways in which practices conduct virtual encounters.

“Some practices are using HIPAA-compliant [telehealth] platforms and training their patients on how to use those platforms,” Dr. Mehrotra noted. “Other clinics are mainly just phoning patients. You could envision those practices could easily revert back to in-person visits, because a phone call is going to be limited in many cases. Also, practices need to know whether payers will keep covering telehealth after the pandemic is over.”

The study shows that in-person visits, which declined more than total visits in March and early April, are now increasing at about the same rate as total visits. However, in-person visits are still down by more than 40%.

Asked whether financially vulnerable practices will be able to afford the safeguards that medical societies recommend to resume in-person visits, Dr. Mostashari pointed out that Medicare is now paying $28 to collect a COVID-19 specimen from a patient.

“Just the cost of changing PPE, plus disinfecting the room or setting up a separate room or testing facility: Those expenses are not included. We should have better accounting on what it actually costs to run a practice in the time of COVID. It’s not the same as their earlier operating costs.”

Dr. Mehrotra agreed. “You also can’t have 20 people in your waiting room or the throughput you had previously. So the number of patients you’ll be able to see will be lower because of appropriate restrictions.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care practices are facing an existential threat, and they need government help now if they are to survive.

That was the main message at a teleconference held on May 20 to announce the results of a study showing that outpatient visits have rebounded across the United States. Having dropped 60% from their prepandemic level in early April, office visits are now significantly higher but are still 30% less than the baseline, on average, according to new data from the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, and Phreesia, a health information technology firm.

The outpatient visits study shows that most of the recovery was attributable to a rise in in-person visits, not telehealth encounters, which have plateaued. The rebound was more pronounced in some regions, like the South and Southwest, than in others, such as New England and the Mid-Atlantic.

Primary care practices are now experiencing 25% fewer visits than they did in early March, the study shows. While some other specialties have seen a greater drop-off in visits, speakers at the news conference drew reporters’ attention to the financial plight of primary care.

“Primary care practices are in dire straits, and their ability to treat patients is under threat,” said Melinda Abrams, MS, senior vice president of delivery system reform and international innovations for the Commonwealth Fund. “In the long term, an investment in primary care will ensure we have primary care, because we are concerned about its collapse.”

Health policy experts from the Commonwealth Fund and other organizations, she said, propose that the next round of federal economic stimulus funding include recovery resources dedicated to primary care practices, especially small practices and those in underserved areas. She said the money should be distributed immediately through Medicare and Medicaid in supplemental monthly payments.

Up to now, Ms. Abrams said, no money in any of the federal rescue packages has been specifically earmarked for primary care.

Close permanently?

Farzad Mostashari, MD, CEO of Aledade and former national coordinator for health information technology at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, agreed primary care needs immediate help.

Aledade’s customers for population health management services, he noted, are some of the most forward-looking and technologically savvy primary care groups. “Nevertheless, those practices are suffering,” Dr. Mostashari said. “Many of them are at risk financially. There has been a massive 60%-70% drop in face-to-face visits. About 40% of visits are telehealth, but the practices are still down 30% or more in visits. And they’re losing ancillary revenues from procedures and labs.”

The financial devastation of the pandemic is causing some physicians to question whether they will be able to stay in practice. A recent survey from the California Healthcare Foundation found that a third of California primary care doctors are worried their practices will be forced to close permanently because of the financial impact of COVID-19. Many doctors said their practices had furloughed or laid off staff or that they’d been forced to take pay cuts.

Similarly, a recent survey by the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative found that 13% of practices predicted closure within the next month and that 20% have already had temporary closures. Forty-two percent of the practices have laid off or furloughed staff, and 51% are uncertain about their financial future through June.
 

Primary care is essential

A pandemic-related reduction in the number of primary care physicians would exacerbate what many observers view as a nationwide shortage of primary care. Right now, the health care system badly needs all the primary care doctors it has, Ms. Abrams and Dr. Mostashari said.

Decades of research have shown that strong primary care is associated with better outcomes, lower per capita costs, and greater equity, Ms. Abrams noted. In addition, she said, dedicated support for primary care during the pandemic will help ensure that doctors meet the needs of patients with chronic diseases so they don’t have to be hospitalized.

Moreover, with proper support, primary care physicians can expand COVID-19 testing “so we can reopen the economy and perhaps prevent or contain the second wave of the virus,” she said.

Dr. Mostashari pointed out that primary care providers are on the front line of the pandemic. Although much attention has been rightfully given to those who treat COVID-19 patients in hospitals, he observed, “before those patients are admitted, they need to see primary care physicians. ... We have to maintain the primary care first line of defense. When the CDC says if you’re having symptoms, call your doctor, someone has to pick up the phone at the other end.”

In addition, he said, “there’s a hidden pandemic of untreated chronic conditions we should all be worried about. We know primary care is important because if you don’t do prevention, you’ll pay the price in heart attacks and strokes and kidney failure, and we’ve seen a dramatic decline in primary care services. In New York City, some people who have avoided necessary care have had bad outcomes, including in-home cardiac death.”

Dr. Mostashari also argued that the negative financial impact of COVID-19 could lead to a further consolidation of the industry as health systems and private equity investors take over failing practices. Past experience suggests that that would result in “a lack of choice, a lack of competition, and a lack of access” in many cases, he said.

The best long-term solution, he said, is to pay primary care physicians capitation instead of on a fee-for-service basis so that they’re not dependent on income from face-to-face visits.

In the short term, however, they need direct cash payments, Dr. Mostashari said. He called on Congress to allocate at least $15 billion to bolster the viability of primary care practices.
 

Telehealth levels off

One of the key findings of the outpatient visits study is that telehealth encounters, after soaring in the early days of the pandemic, have leveled off. After hitting a peak of 14% of all visits in mid-April, telehealth visits now make up about 12% of the total.

Study coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, an associate professor of health policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said he’d expected the use of telehealth to continue rising. The fact that it hasn’t, he told reporters at the news conference, may be related to the different ways in which practices conduct virtual encounters.

“Some practices are using HIPAA-compliant [telehealth] platforms and training their patients on how to use those platforms,” Dr. Mehrotra noted. “Other clinics are mainly just phoning patients. You could envision those practices could easily revert back to in-person visits, because a phone call is going to be limited in many cases. Also, practices need to know whether payers will keep covering telehealth after the pandemic is over.”

The study shows that in-person visits, which declined more than total visits in March and early April, are now increasing at about the same rate as total visits. However, in-person visits are still down by more than 40%.

Asked whether financially vulnerable practices will be able to afford the safeguards that medical societies recommend to resume in-person visits, Dr. Mostashari pointed out that Medicare is now paying $28 to collect a COVID-19 specimen from a patient.

“Just the cost of changing PPE, plus disinfecting the room or setting up a separate room or testing facility: Those expenses are not included. We should have better accounting on what it actually costs to run a practice in the time of COVID. It’s not the same as their earlier operating costs.”

Dr. Mehrotra agreed. “You also can’t have 20 people in your waiting room or the throughput you had previously. So the number of patients you’ll be able to see will be lower because of appropriate restrictions.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care practices are facing an existential threat, and they need government help now if they are to survive.

That was the main message at a teleconference held on May 20 to announce the results of a study showing that outpatient visits have rebounded across the United States. Having dropped 60% from their prepandemic level in early April, office visits are now significantly higher but are still 30% less than the baseline, on average, according to new data from the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, and Phreesia, a health information technology firm.

The outpatient visits study shows that most of the recovery was attributable to a rise in in-person visits, not telehealth encounters, which have plateaued. The rebound was more pronounced in some regions, like the South and Southwest, than in others, such as New England and the Mid-Atlantic.

Primary care practices are now experiencing 25% fewer visits than they did in early March, the study shows. While some other specialties have seen a greater drop-off in visits, speakers at the news conference drew reporters’ attention to the financial plight of primary care.

“Primary care practices are in dire straits, and their ability to treat patients is under threat,” said Melinda Abrams, MS, senior vice president of delivery system reform and international innovations for the Commonwealth Fund. “In the long term, an investment in primary care will ensure we have primary care, because we are concerned about its collapse.”

Health policy experts from the Commonwealth Fund and other organizations, she said, propose that the next round of federal economic stimulus funding include recovery resources dedicated to primary care practices, especially small practices and those in underserved areas. She said the money should be distributed immediately through Medicare and Medicaid in supplemental monthly payments.

Up to now, Ms. Abrams said, no money in any of the federal rescue packages has been specifically earmarked for primary care.

Close permanently?

Farzad Mostashari, MD, CEO of Aledade and former national coordinator for health information technology at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, agreed primary care needs immediate help.

Aledade’s customers for population health management services, he noted, are some of the most forward-looking and technologically savvy primary care groups. “Nevertheless, those practices are suffering,” Dr. Mostashari said. “Many of them are at risk financially. There has been a massive 60%-70% drop in face-to-face visits. About 40% of visits are telehealth, but the practices are still down 30% or more in visits. And they’re losing ancillary revenues from procedures and labs.”

The financial devastation of the pandemic is causing some physicians to question whether they will be able to stay in practice. A recent survey from the California Healthcare Foundation found that a third of California primary care doctors are worried their practices will be forced to close permanently because of the financial impact of COVID-19. Many doctors said their practices had furloughed or laid off staff or that they’d been forced to take pay cuts.

Similarly, a recent survey by the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative found that 13% of practices predicted closure within the next month and that 20% have already had temporary closures. Forty-two percent of the practices have laid off or furloughed staff, and 51% are uncertain about their financial future through June.
 

Primary care is essential

A pandemic-related reduction in the number of primary care physicians would exacerbate what many observers view as a nationwide shortage of primary care. Right now, the health care system badly needs all the primary care doctors it has, Ms. Abrams and Dr. Mostashari said.

Decades of research have shown that strong primary care is associated with better outcomes, lower per capita costs, and greater equity, Ms. Abrams noted. In addition, she said, dedicated support for primary care during the pandemic will help ensure that doctors meet the needs of patients with chronic diseases so they don’t have to be hospitalized.

Moreover, with proper support, primary care physicians can expand COVID-19 testing “so we can reopen the economy and perhaps prevent or contain the second wave of the virus,” she said.

Dr. Mostashari pointed out that primary care providers are on the front line of the pandemic. Although much attention has been rightfully given to those who treat COVID-19 patients in hospitals, he observed, “before those patients are admitted, they need to see primary care physicians. ... We have to maintain the primary care first line of defense. When the CDC says if you’re having symptoms, call your doctor, someone has to pick up the phone at the other end.”

In addition, he said, “there’s a hidden pandemic of untreated chronic conditions we should all be worried about. We know primary care is important because if you don’t do prevention, you’ll pay the price in heart attacks and strokes and kidney failure, and we’ve seen a dramatic decline in primary care services. In New York City, some people who have avoided necessary care have had bad outcomes, including in-home cardiac death.”

Dr. Mostashari also argued that the negative financial impact of COVID-19 could lead to a further consolidation of the industry as health systems and private equity investors take over failing practices. Past experience suggests that that would result in “a lack of choice, a lack of competition, and a lack of access” in many cases, he said.

The best long-term solution, he said, is to pay primary care physicians capitation instead of on a fee-for-service basis so that they’re not dependent on income from face-to-face visits.

In the short term, however, they need direct cash payments, Dr. Mostashari said. He called on Congress to allocate at least $15 billion to bolster the viability of primary care practices.
 

Telehealth levels off

One of the key findings of the outpatient visits study is that telehealth encounters, after soaring in the early days of the pandemic, have leveled off. After hitting a peak of 14% of all visits in mid-April, telehealth visits now make up about 12% of the total.

Study coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, an associate professor of health policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said he’d expected the use of telehealth to continue rising. The fact that it hasn’t, he told reporters at the news conference, may be related to the different ways in which practices conduct virtual encounters.

“Some practices are using HIPAA-compliant [telehealth] platforms and training their patients on how to use those platforms,” Dr. Mehrotra noted. “Other clinics are mainly just phoning patients. You could envision those practices could easily revert back to in-person visits, because a phone call is going to be limited in many cases. Also, practices need to know whether payers will keep covering telehealth after the pandemic is over.”

The study shows that in-person visits, which declined more than total visits in March and early April, are now increasing at about the same rate as total visits. However, in-person visits are still down by more than 40%.

Asked whether financially vulnerable practices will be able to afford the safeguards that medical societies recommend to resume in-person visits, Dr. Mostashari pointed out that Medicare is now paying $28 to collect a COVID-19 specimen from a patient.

“Just the cost of changing PPE, plus disinfecting the room or setting up a separate room or testing facility: Those expenses are not included. We should have better accounting on what it actually costs to run a practice in the time of COVID. It’s not the same as their earlier operating costs.”

Dr. Mehrotra agreed. “You also can’t have 20 people in your waiting room or the throughput you had previously. So the number of patients you’ll be able to see will be lower because of appropriate restrictions.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians all over the country already likely know this, but a survey by the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) made it official: 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

The survey, which was conducted April 7-8, also shows that 55% of practices have seen a decrease in revenue and 60% have experienced a decline in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis.

A significant number of medical practices have also been forced to lay off or furlough staff in response to the COVID-19 crisis, the MGMA said. Many practices that have not yet laid off or furloughed employees will consider doing so if the conditions persist over the next 30 days.

Through April 8, 22% of survey respondents reported they had laid off staff. In the same period, 48% had furloughed employees. The survey projects that, by May 8, if the COVID-19 situation hasn’t improved, 36% of practices will have laid off staff members and 60% will have furloughed them.

The survey received 724 applicable responses, the MGMA said. Approximately 75% of respondents are part of independent medical practices and employ fewer than 50 full-time-equivalent physicians. But the respondents belong to practices of all sizes and specialties.

The bare numbers only scratch the surface of the pain that many groups and owners of physician practices are feeling.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day, exposing themselves to risks, taking care of patients, and taking care of their employees by continuing to pay them while they have taken over a 50% pay cut,” said a representative of an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama in the MGMA press release.

“All doctors and administrative staff have deferred their salaries during this period,” a representative from a small independent practice in Mississippi that specializes in pain management said in the press release. “We have laid off most of our staff except five people.”

Employed groups tend to be in better financial shape than independent practices because they have the resources of large health care systems behind them. Some hospitals have laid off employees, however, and some of the cuts are starting to hit outpatient clinics.
 

Elective procedures down

In an interview conducted before the survey was released, Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, president and CEO of MGMA, said in an interview that single-specialty groups that perform elective procedures have seen “dramatic decreases in volume.” The Trump administration and at least two dozen states have asked hospitals to halt those procedures during this phase of the crisis, according to multiple media reports.

Some groups with multiple offices, Dr. Fischer-Wright noted, are deciding whether to staff them all because of their decreased volume and their concern about staff exposure to the coronavirus.

“We see them condensing down and delegating sick and well offices,” she said. “The benefit is that it allows them to be efficient with their staff use and also to place their limited PPE [personal protective equipment] supplies in the right office.”

Noting that there are costs involved in laying off staff and that practices want to retain good people if possible, Dr. Fischer-Wright advised practices to furlough employees rather than lay them off if they can.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians all over the country already likely know this, but a survey by the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) made it official: 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

The survey, which was conducted April 7-8, also shows that 55% of practices have seen a decrease in revenue and 60% have experienced a decline in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis.

A significant number of medical practices have also been forced to lay off or furlough staff in response to the COVID-19 crisis, the MGMA said. Many practices that have not yet laid off or furloughed employees will consider doing so if the conditions persist over the next 30 days.

Through April 8, 22% of survey respondents reported they had laid off staff. In the same period, 48% had furloughed employees. The survey projects that, by May 8, if the COVID-19 situation hasn’t improved, 36% of practices will have laid off staff members and 60% will have furloughed them.

The survey received 724 applicable responses, the MGMA said. Approximately 75% of respondents are part of independent medical practices and employ fewer than 50 full-time-equivalent physicians. But the respondents belong to practices of all sizes and specialties.

The bare numbers only scratch the surface of the pain that many groups and owners of physician practices are feeling.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day, exposing themselves to risks, taking care of patients, and taking care of their employees by continuing to pay them while they have taken over a 50% pay cut,” said a representative of an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama in the MGMA press release.

“All doctors and administrative staff have deferred their salaries during this period,” a representative from a small independent practice in Mississippi that specializes in pain management said in the press release. “We have laid off most of our staff except five people.”

Employed groups tend to be in better financial shape than independent practices because they have the resources of large health care systems behind them. Some hospitals have laid off employees, however, and some of the cuts are starting to hit outpatient clinics.
 

Elective procedures down

In an interview conducted before the survey was released, Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, president and CEO of MGMA, said in an interview that single-specialty groups that perform elective procedures have seen “dramatic decreases in volume.” The Trump administration and at least two dozen states have asked hospitals to halt those procedures during this phase of the crisis, according to multiple media reports.

Some groups with multiple offices, Dr. Fischer-Wright noted, are deciding whether to staff them all because of their decreased volume and their concern about staff exposure to the coronavirus.

“We see them condensing down and delegating sick and well offices,” she said. “The benefit is that it allows them to be efficient with their staff use and also to place their limited PPE [personal protective equipment] supplies in the right office.”

Noting that there are costs involved in laying off staff and that practices want to retain good people if possible, Dr. Fischer-Wright advised practices to furlough employees rather than lay them off if they can.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians all over the country already likely know this, but a survey by the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) made it official: 97% of physician practices have experienced negative financial effects directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.

The survey, which was conducted April 7-8, also shows that 55% of practices have seen a decrease in revenue and 60% have experienced a decline in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis.

A significant number of medical practices have also been forced to lay off or furlough staff in response to the COVID-19 crisis, the MGMA said. Many practices that have not yet laid off or furloughed employees will consider doing so if the conditions persist over the next 30 days.

Through April 8, 22% of survey respondents reported they had laid off staff. In the same period, 48% had furloughed employees. The survey projects that, by May 8, if the COVID-19 situation hasn’t improved, 36% of practices will have laid off staff members and 60% will have furloughed them.

The survey received 724 applicable responses, the MGMA said. Approximately 75% of respondents are part of independent medical practices and employ fewer than 50 full-time-equivalent physicians. But the respondents belong to practices of all sizes and specialties.

The bare numbers only scratch the surface of the pain that many groups and owners of physician practices are feeling.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day, exposing themselves to risks, taking care of patients, and taking care of their employees by continuing to pay them while they have taken over a 50% pay cut,” said a representative of an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama in the MGMA press release.

“All doctors and administrative staff have deferred their salaries during this period,” a representative from a small independent practice in Mississippi that specializes in pain management said in the press release. “We have laid off most of our staff except five people.”

Employed groups tend to be in better financial shape than independent practices because they have the resources of large health care systems behind them. Some hospitals have laid off employees, however, and some of the cuts are starting to hit outpatient clinics.
 

Elective procedures down

In an interview conducted before the survey was released, Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, president and CEO of MGMA, said in an interview that single-specialty groups that perform elective procedures have seen “dramatic decreases in volume.” The Trump administration and at least two dozen states have asked hospitals to halt those procedures during this phase of the crisis, according to multiple media reports.

Some groups with multiple offices, Dr. Fischer-Wright noted, are deciding whether to staff them all because of their decreased volume and their concern about staff exposure to the coronavirus.

“We see them condensing down and delegating sick and well offices,” she said. “The benefit is that it allows them to be efficient with their staff use and also to place their limited PPE [personal protective equipment] supplies in the right office.”

Noting that there are costs involved in laying off staff and that practices want to retain good people if possible, Dr. Fischer-Wright advised practices to furlough employees rather than lay them off if they can.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Medical Association (AMA) along with scores of specialty and state medical societies are asking the Trump administration to help the nation’s clinicians out with an immediate cash infusion that they say they need to sustain their practices, many of which have been crippled by the COVID-19 crisis.

In an April 7 letter to Secretary of US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar, the AMA, backed by 137 medical groups, made the case for “immediate financial assistance” from the government for all US physicians and nurse practitioners and physician assistants enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. These payments would be equal to roughly 1 month’s worth of prepandemic revenue from all payers.

Under the methodology laid out in the letter, HHS would use an individual clinician’s average monthly Medicare payment from October to December 2019 to determine their precrisis monthly revenue.

Because Medicare business generates an average of 35% of practice revenue in most specialties, the letter suggests that HHS triple the monthly Medicare payment to calculate the amount of emergency funding it should provide to each clinician.

The letter acknowledges that this approach wouldn’t work for certain specialties, such as psychiatry, allergy/immunology, obstetrics/gynecology, and pediatrics, which derive far less revenue from Medicare than other specialties do. These physicians’ payouts “should be adjusted upward accordingly,” the letter states.

“Physicians are continuing to put their patients’ needs first to combat this unprecedented public health emergency,” the AMA writes. “We urge you to support them against financial peril while they put their lives and businesses at risk.”

Other Emergency Funding Programs

These disbursements would be separate from the $30 billion in direct provider payments announced on April 7 by Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Because these payments are based on Medicare volume, the vast majority of this money is expected to go to hospitals.

The government is also providing financial support to hospitals, physicians, and other clinicians affected by the pandemic through CMS’s accelerated/advance payment program, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Physician practices can apply to receive upfront payments equal to 3 months’ worth of their historical Medicare payments, but they must pay back these loans, starting at 120 days after receiving them.

In addition, providers with less than 500 employees can apply for Small Business Administration (SBA) loans that were authorized by the CURES Act. If they use at least 75% of this money to cover payroll costs, the loans will be forgiven.

Medical leaders defended their request for direct physician relief in excess of what these three government programs are offering.

“From the very beginning, the AMA has been advocating for [financial] support for physician practices,” AMA President Patrice Harris, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not an either/or, it’s not a choice between hospitals or physician practices, it’s both.”

She made it clear that this applied not only to the direct payments that the CURES Act allocated to healthcare providers, but also to the SBA loans.

“We’ve been pleased to see support through the Small Business Administration, and we know that many practices have applied for loans,” Harris said. “We’ll review this, because physician practices have to be included.”

Thus far, she added, “I haven’t heard of anyone [in a medical practice] who has actually received a loan. We’ll be monitoring that, because that will be key.”

Likewise, Robert Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians (ACP), said he hadn’t heard of any practices receiving SBA loans, although many have applied.

What he has heard is that “people couldn’t even get through the SBA process and the website was freezing up. They also have to find a lender, submit documentation and get approved by the lender. And they’re competing with all the other small businesses” for a finite amount of money.

Doherty said it was unclear how many practices have received advance payments from CMS so far. CMS said it disbursed $34 billion in these payments in the first week of the program. These went to over 17,000 of the more than 25,000 applicants, CMS noted.

The ACP – which joined the AMA in its request to HHS – supports the advanced-payment program, Doherty added, but “a loan is a loan. You have to repay it. It brings in cash now, but it means you don’t have cash a few months from now. That’s different from what we’re recommending, which is an infusion of cash to practices that wouldn’t have to be repaid.”

Another advantage of the AMA-led proposal, he said, is its simplicity. It’s based on data that CMS already has, and it doesn’t require physicians to fill out forms or provide documents.

In contrast, he said, “We don’t think HHS would have the ability to process applications from thousands and thousands of physicians [for direct payments]. To create a situation where they’d have to review applications from physicians for funding out of that [CARES Act] emergency fund is probably almost impossible for HHS to administer effectively.”

Most Practices Need Help

While the medical societies’ letter makes a strong pitch for supporting physicians who are combating COVID-19, Harris and Doherty noted that physicians in all kinds of practice situations desperately need this help.

“We’ve heard from many physician practices that they have trouble making payroll,” Doherty said. “Many of them are not seeking any money out of the practices for themselves right now. They’re just trying to keep their staff employed. And some will shut their doors, unless there’s a significant and immediate infusion of money to them. From a healthcare capacity viewpoint, it’s not going to be to anyone’s benefit to see a substantial number of practices laying off staff or closing up entirely because they don’t have the money coming in to keep the doors open,” he said.

Harris agreed. “We’re hearing from practices large and small all over the country, including solo practices. Even the larger practices are losing revenue,” she pointed out. “They appropriately shut down their offices or reduced their hours. They didn’t want to contribute to the further spread of COVID-19.”

Rural practices and those launched by young physicians are facing especially difficult challenges, Harris added, and some may not make it.

It’s also important for policy makers to look ahead to what lies after the pandemic, she said. “We will come out of this, but when we come out of it there will be a lot of pent-up or unmet need where folks delayed necessary visits. Physicians and practices will have to be ready to go. If practices have to furlough some staff, it’s going to take time to ramp that up. So we’re glad to see support of physician practices so the infrastructure is strong when we start again.”

What happens if HHS turns down the medical societies’ request? “We’re hopeful that the [HHS] secretary will agree to what we’re asking,” Doherty said. While it’s always possible to ask Congress to intervene in the next stimulus bill, he said, that wouldn’t happen fast enough to get the money to physicians when they really need it.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Medical Association (AMA) along with scores of specialty and state medical societies are asking the Trump administration to help the nation’s clinicians out with an immediate cash infusion that they say they need to sustain their practices, many of which have been crippled by the COVID-19 crisis.

In an April 7 letter to Secretary of US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar, the AMA, backed by 137 medical groups, made the case for “immediate financial assistance” from the government for all US physicians and nurse practitioners and physician assistants enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. These payments would be equal to roughly 1 month’s worth of prepandemic revenue from all payers.

Under the methodology laid out in the letter, HHS would use an individual clinician’s average monthly Medicare payment from October to December 2019 to determine their precrisis monthly revenue.

Because Medicare business generates an average of 35% of practice revenue in most specialties, the letter suggests that HHS triple the monthly Medicare payment to calculate the amount of emergency funding it should provide to each clinician.

The letter acknowledges that this approach wouldn’t work for certain specialties, such as psychiatry, allergy/immunology, obstetrics/gynecology, and pediatrics, which derive far less revenue from Medicare than other specialties do. These physicians’ payouts “should be adjusted upward accordingly,” the letter states.

“Physicians are continuing to put their patients’ needs first to combat this unprecedented public health emergency,” the AMA writes. “We urge you to support them against financial peril while they put their lives and businesses at risk.”

Other Emergency Funding Programs

These disbursements would be separate from the $30 billion in direct provider payments announced on April 7 by Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Because these payments are based on Medicare volume, the vast majority of this money is expected to go to hospitals.

The government is also providing financial support to hospitals, physicians, and other clinicians affected by the pandemic through CMS’s accelerated/advance payment program, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Physician practices can apply to receive upfront payments equal to 3 months’ worth of their historical Medicare payments, but they must pay back these loans, starting at 120 days after receiving them.

In addition, providers with less than 500 employees can apply for Small Business Administration (SBA) loans that were authorized by the CURES Act. If they use at least 75% of this money to cover payroll costs, the loans will be forgiven.

Medical leaders defended their request for direct physician relief in excess of what these three government programs are offering.

“From the very beginning, the AMA has been advocating for [financial] support for physician practices,” AMA President Patrice Harris, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not an either/or, it’s not a choice between hospitals or physician practices, it’s both.”

She made it clear that this applied not only to the direct payments that the CURES Act allocated to healthcare providers, but also to the SBA loans.

“We’ve been pleased to see support through the Small Business Administration, and we know that many practices have applied for loans,” Harris said. “We’ll review this, because physician practices have to be included.”

Thus far, she added, “I haven’t heard of anyone [in a medical practice] who has actually received a loan. We’ll be monitoring that, because that will be key.”

Likewise, Robert Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians (ACP), said he hadn’t heard of any practices receiving SBA loans, although many have applied.

What he has heard is that “people couldn’t even get through the SBA process and the website was freezing up. They also have to find a lender, submit documentation and get approved by the lender. And they’re competing with all the other small businesses” for a finite amount of money.

Doherty said it was unclear how many practices have received advance payments from CMS so far. CMS said it disbursed $34 billion in these payments in the first week of the program. These went to over 17,000 of the more than 25,000 applicants, CMS noted.

The ACP – which joined the AMA in its request to HHS – supports the advanced-payment program, Doherty added, but “a loan is a loan. You have to repay it. It brings in cash now, but it means you don’t have cash a few months from now. That’s different from what we’re recommending, which is an infusion of cash to practices that wouldn’t have to be repaid.”

Another advantage of the AMA-led proposal, he said, is its simplicity. It’s based on data that CMS already has, and it doesn’t require physicians to fill out forms or provide documents.

In contrast, he said, “We don’t think HHS would have the ability to process applications from thousands and thousands of physicians [for direct payments]. To create a situation where they’d have to review applications from physicians for funding out of that [CARES Act] emergency fund is probably almost impossible for HHS to administer effectively.”

Most Practices Need Help

While the medical societies’ letter makes a strong pitch for supporting physicians who are combating COVID-19, Harris and Doherty noted that physicians in all kinds of practice situations desperately need this help.

“We’ve heard from many physician practices that they have trouble making payroll,” Doherty said. “Many of them are not seeking any money out of the practices for themselves right now. They’re just trying to keep their staff employed. And some will shut their doors, unless there’s a significant and immediate infusion of money to them. From a healthcare capacity viewpoint, it’s not going to be to anyone’s benefit to see a substantial number of practices laying off staff or closing up entirely because they don’t have the money coming in to keep the doors open,” he said.

Harris agreed. “We’re hearing from practices large and small all over the country, including solo practices. Even the larger practices are losing revenue,” she pointed out. “They appropriately shut down their offices or reduced their hours. They didn’t want to contribute to the further spread of COVID-19.”

Rural practices and those launched by young physicians are facing especially difficult challenges, Harris added, and some may not make it.

It’s also important for policy makers to look ahead to what lies after the pandemic, she said. “We will come out of this, but when we come out of it there will be a lot of pent-up or unmet need where folks delayed necessary visits. Physicians and practices will have to be ready to go. If practices have to furlough some staff, it’s going to take time to ramp that up. So we’re glad to see support of physician practices so the infrastructure is strong when we start again.”

What happens if HHS turns down the medical societies’ request? “We’re hopeful that the [HHS] secretary will agree to what we’re asking,” Doherty said. While it’s always possible to ask Congress to intervene in the next stimulus bill, he said, that wouldn’t happen fast enough to get the money to physicians when they really need it.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Medical Association (AMA) along with scores of specialty and state medical societies are asking the Trump administration to help the nation’s clinicians out with an immediate cash infusion that they say they need to sustain their practices, many of which have been crippled by the COVID-19 crisis.

In an April 7 letter to Secretary of US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar, the AMA, backed by 137 medical groups, made the case for “immediate financial assistance” from the government for all US physicians and nurse practitioners and physician assistants enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. These payments would be equal to roughly 1 month’s worth of prepandemic revenue from all payers.

Under the methodology laid out in the letter, HHS would use an individual clinician’s average monthly Medicare payment from October to December 2019 to determine their precrisis monthly revenue.

Because Medicare business generates an average of 35% of practice revenue in most specialties, the letter suggests that HHS triple the monthly Medicare payment to calculate the amount of emergency funding it should provide to each clinician.

The letter acknowledges that this approach wouldn’t work for certain specialties, such as psychiatry, allergy/immunology, obstetrics/gynecology, and pediatrics, which derive far less revenue from Medicare than other specialties do. These physicians’ payouts “should be adjusted upward accordingly,” the letter states.

“Physicians are continuing to put their patients’ needs first to combat this unprecedented public health emergency,” the AMA writes. “We urge you to support them against financial peril while they put their lives and businesses at risk.”

Other Emergency Funding Programs

These disbursements would be separate from the $30 billion in direct provider payments announced on April 7 by Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Because these payments are based on Medicare volume, the vast majority of this money is expected to go to hospitals.

The government is also providing financial support to hospitals, physicians, and other clinicians affected by the pandemic through CMS’s accelerated/advance payment program, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Physician practices can apply to receive upfront payments equal to 3 months’ worth of their historical Medicare payments, but they must pay back these loans, starting at 120 days after receiving them.

In addition, providers with less than 500 employees can apply for Small Business Administration (SBA) loans that were authorized by the CURES Act. If they use at least 75% of this money to cover payroll costs, the loans will be forgiven.

Medical leaders defended their request for direct physician relief in excess of what these three government programs are offering.

“From the very beginning, the AMA has been advocating for [financial] support for physician practices,” AMA President Patrice Harris, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not an either/or, it’s not a choice between hospitals or physician practices, it’s both.”

She made it clear that this applied not only to the direct payments that the CURES Act allocated to healthcare providers, but also to the SBA loans.

“We’ve been pleased to see support through the Small Business Administration, and we know that many practices have applied for loans,” Harris said. “We’ll review this, because physician practices have to be included.”

Thus far, she added, “I haven’t heard of anyone [in a medical practice] who has actually received a loan. We’ll be monitoring that, because that will be key.”

Likewise, Robert Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians (ACP), said he hadn’t heard of any practices receiving SBA loans, although many have applied.

What he has heard is that “people couldn’t even get through the SBA process and the website was freezing up. They also have to find a lender, submit documentation and get approved by the lender. And they’re competing with all the other small businesses” for a finite amount of money.

Doherty said it was unclear how many practices have received advance payments from CMS so far. CMS said it disbursed $34 billion in these payments in the first week of the program. These went to over 17,000 of the more than 25,000 applicants, CMS noted.

The ACP – which joined the AMA in its request to HHS – supports the advanced-payment program, Doherty added, but “a loan is a loan. You have to repay it. It brings in cash now, but it means you don’t have cash a few months from now. That’s different from what we’re recommending, which is an infusion of cash to practices that wouldn’t have to be repaid.”

Another advantage of the AMA-led proposal, he said, is its simplicity. It’s based on data that CMS already has, and it doesn’t require physicians to fill out forms or provide documents.

In contrast, he said, “We don’t think HHS would have the ability to process applications from thousands and thousands of physicians [for direct payments]. To create a situation where they’d have to review applications from physicians for funding out of that [CARES Act] emergency fund is probably almost impossible for HHS to administer effectively.”

Most Practices Need Help

While the medical societies’ letter makes a strong pitch for supporting physicians who are combating COVID-19, Harris and Doherty noted that physicians in all kinds of practice situations desperately need this help.

“We’ve heard from many physician practices that they have trouble making payroll,” Doherty said. “Many of them are not seeking any money out of the practices for themselves right now. They’re just trying to keep their staff employed. And some will shut their doors, unless there’s a significant and immediate infusion of money to them. From a healthcare capacity viewpoint, it’s not going to be to anyone’s benefit to see a substantial number of practices laying off staff or closing up entirely because they don’t have the money coming in to keep the doors open,” he said.

Harris agreed. “We’re hearing from practices large and small all over the country, including solo practices. Even the larger practices are losing revenue,” she pointed out. “They appropriately shut down their offices or reduced their hours. They didn’t want to contribute to the further spread of COVID-19.”

Rural practices and those launched by young physicians are facing especially difficult challenges, Harris added, and some may not make it.

It’s also important for policy makers to look ahead to what lies after the pandemic, she said. “We will come out of this, but when we come out of it there will be a lot of pent-up or unmet need where folks delayed necessary visits. Physicians and practices will have to be ready to go. If practices have to furlough some staff, it’s going to take time to ramp that up. So we’re glad to see support of physician practices so the infrastructure is strong when we start again.”

What happens if HHS turns down the medical societies’ request? “We’re hopeful that the [HHS] secretary will agree to what we’re asking,” Doherty said. While it’s always possible to ask Congress to intervene in the next stimulus bill, he said, that wouldn’t happen fast enough to get the money to physicians when they really need it.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

To boost the capacity of frontline clinicians and facilities to fight COVID-19, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on Thursday announced it is temporarily suspending rules to allow physicians to provide telehealth services across state lines, and will permit midlevel practitioners to provide as much care as their state licenses allow.

Physicians can now care for patients at rural hospitals across state lines via phone, radio, or online communications without having to be physically present.

“Remotely located physicians, coordinating with nurse practitioners at rural hospitals, will provide staffs at such facilities additional flexibility to meet the needs of their patients,” a CMS news release said.

At skilled nursing facilities, nurse practitioners will now be able to perform some medical exams that doctors normally conduct on Medicare patients, whether they are COVID-19-related or not, CMS said.

Occupational therapists from home health agencies can now perform initial assessments on certain homebound patients, allowing home health services to start sooner and freeing home health nurses to do more direct patient care.

In addition, hospice nurses will be relieved of hospice aide in-service training tasks so they can spend more time with patients.

“It’s all hands on deck during this crisis,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma in the press release. “All frontline medical professionals need to be able to work at the highest level they were trained for. CMS is making sure there are no regulatory obstacles to increasing the medical workforce to handle the patient surge during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The announcement did not directly address the question of whether CMS’ new telemedicine and scope-of-practice policies override state laws. The agency said, “CMS sets and enforces essential quality and safety standards that supplement state scope-of-practice and licensure laws for healthcare workers. CMS has continuously examined its regulations to identify areas where federal requirements may be more stringent than state laws and requirements.”

On March 20, Vice President Pence announced that physicians would be allowed to practice across state lines during the COVID-19 crisis, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Until now, however, CMS had not changed its regulations to allow doctors to conduct telehealth consultations in states other than the ones in which they are licensed.

Other Changes

As part of other rule changes to support the healthcare workforce, CMS said on March 30 that it will pay for more than 80 additional services when furnished via telehealth.

These include emergency department visits, initial skilled nursing facility and discharge visits, and home visits. In addition, the agency said it would cover phone visits with Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, while virtual “check-in” visits had previously been limited to established patients, CMS said that doctors would be able to provide these services to both new and established patients.

Among its other regulatory changes in recent weeks, CMS has also temporarily:

• Permitted physicians whose privileges will expire to continue practicing at a hospital, and allowed new physicians to begin working prior to full hospital medical staff/governing body review and approval
• Lifted regulatory requirements regarding hospital personnel qualified to perform specific respiratory care procedures, allowing these professionals to operate to the fullest extent of their licensure
• Waived federal minimum personnel qualifications for clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants so they can work at rural hospitals as long as they meet state licensure requirements
• Allowed physicians and nonphysician practitioners to use telehealth to care for patients at long-term care facilities, rather than having to treat patients at those facilities in person

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

To boost the capacity of frontline clinicians and facilities to fight COVID-19, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on Thursday announced it is temporarily suspending rules to allow physicians to provide telehealth services across state lines, and will permit midlevel practitioners to provide as much care as their state licenses allow.

Physicians can now care for patients at rural hospitals across state lines via phone, radio, or online communications without having to be physically present.

“Remotely located physicians, coordinating with nurse practitioners at rural hospitals, will provide staffs at such facilities additional flexibility to meet the needs of their patients,” a CMS news release said.

At skilled nursing facilities, nurse practitioners will now be able to perform some medical exams that doctors normally conduct on Medicare patients, whether they are COVID-19-related or not, CMS said.

Occupational therapists from home health agencies can now perform initial assessments on certain homebound patients, allowing home health services to start sooner and freeing home health nurses to do more direct patient care.

In addition, hospice nurses will be relieved of hospice aide in-service training tasks so they can spend more time with patients.

“It’s all hands on deck during this crisis,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma in the press release. “All frontline medical professionals need to be able to work at the highest level they were trained for. CMS is making sure there are no regulatory obstacles to increasing the medical workforce to handle the patient surge during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The announcement did not directly address the question of whether CMS’ new telemedicine and scope-of-practice policies override state laws. The agency said, “CMS sets and enforces essential quality and safety standards that supplement state scope-of-practice and licensure laws for healthcare workers. CMS has continuously examined its regulations to identify areas where federal requirements may be more stringent than state laws and requirements.”

On March 20, Vice President Pence announced that physicians would be allowed to practice across state lines during the COVID-19 crisis, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Until now, however, CMS had not changed its regulations to allow doctors to conduct telehealth consultations in states other than the ones in which they are licensed.

Other Changes

As part of other rule changes to support the healthcare workforce, CMS said on March 30 that it will pay for more than 80 additional services when furnished via telehealth.

These include emergency department visits, initial skilled nursing facility and discharge visits, and home visits. In addition, the agency said it would cover phone visits with Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, while virtual “check-in” visits had previously been limited to established patients, CMS said that doctors would be able to provide these services to both new and established patients.

Among its other regulatory changes in recent weeks, CMS has also temporarily:

• Permitted physicians whose privileges will expire to continue practicing at a hospital, and allowed new physicians to begin working prior to full hospital medical staff/governing body review and approval
• Lifted regulatory requirements regarding hospital personnel qualified to perform specific respiratory care procedures, allowing these professionals to operate to the fullest extent of their licensure
• Waived federal minimum personnel qualifications for clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants so they can work at rural hospitals as long as they meet state licensure requirements
• Allowed physicians and nonphysician practitioners to use telehealth to care for patients at long-term care facilities, rather than having to treat patients at those facilities in person

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

To boost the capacity of frontline clinicians and facilities to fight COVID-19, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on Thursday announced it is temporarily suspending rules to allow physicians to provide telehealth services across state lines, and will permit midlevel practitioners to provide as much care as their state licenses allow.

Physicians can now care for patients at rural hospitals across state lines via phone, radio, or online communications without having to be physically present.

“Remotely located physicians, coordinating with nurse practitioners at rural hospitals, will provide staffs at such facilities additional flexibility to meet the needs of their patients,” a CMS news release said.

At skilled nursing facilities, nurse practitioners will now be able to perform some medical exams that doctors normally conduct on Medicare patients, whether they are COVID-19-related or not, CMS said.

Occupational therapists from home health agencies can now perform initial assessments on certain homebound patients, allowing home health services to start sooner and freeing home health nurses to do more direct patient care.

In addition, hospice nurses will be relieved of hospice aide in-service training tasks so they can spend more time with patients.

“It’s all hands on deck during this crisis,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma in the press release. “All frontline medical professionals need to be able to work at the highest level they were trained for. CMS is making sure there are no regulatory obstacles to increasing the medical workforce to handle the patient surge during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The announcement did not directly address the question of whether CMS’ new telemedicine and scope-of-practice policies override state laws. The agency said, “CMS sets and enforces essential quality and safety standards that supplement state scope-of-practice and licensure laws for healthcare workers. CMS has continuously examined its regulations to identify areas where federal requirements may be more stringent than state laws and requirements.”

On March 20, Vice President Pence announced that physicians would be allowed to practice across state lines during the COVID-19 crisis, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Until now, however, CMS had not changed its regulations to allow doctors to conduct telehealth consultations in states other than the ones in which they are licensed.

Other Changes

As part of other rule changes to support the healthcare workforce, CMS said on March 30 that it will pay for more than 80 additional services when furnished via telehealth.

These include emergency department visits, initial skilled nursing facility and discharge visits, and home visits. In addition, the agency said it would cover phone visits with Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, while virtual “check-in” visits had previously been limited to established patients, CMS said that doctors would be able to provide these services to both new and established patients.

Among its other regulatory changes in recent weeks, CMS has also temporarily:

• Permitted physicians whose privileges will expire to continue practicing at a hospital, and allowed new physicians to begin working prior to full hospital medical staff/governing body review and approval
• Lifted regulatory requirements regarding hospital personnel qualified to perform specific respiratory care procedures, allowing these professionals to operate to the fullest extent of their licensure
• Waived federal minimum personnel qualifications for clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants so they can work at rural hospitals as long as they meet state licensure requirements
• Allowed physicians and nonphysician practitioners to use telehealth to care for patients at long-term care facilities, rather than having to treat patients at those facilities in person

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospitals across the country encountered severe challenges as the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic swept over them, and they anticipated much worse to come, according to a new report from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

From March 23 to 27, the OIG interviewed 323 hospitals of several types in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The report it pulled together from these interviews is intended to help HHS manage the crisis, rather than to review its response to the pandemic, the OIG said.

The most significant hospital challenges, the report states, were testing and caring for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and protecting staff members. In addition, the hospitals faced challenges in maintaining or expanding their capacities to treat COVID-19 patients and ensuring the adequacy of basic supplies.

The critical shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and test kits in hospitals have been widely reported by the media. But the OIG report also focused on some areas that have received less press attention.

To begin with, the shortage of tests has not only slowed the national response to the pandemic, but has had a major impact on inpatient care, according to the report’s authors. The limited number of test kits means that only symptomatic staff members and patients can be tested; in some hospitals, there aren’t even enough tests for that, and some facilities subdivided the test kits they had, the report states.

Moreover, the test results often took 7 days or more to come back from commercial or government labs, the report states. In the meantime, symptomatic patients were presumed to have the coronavirus. While awaiting the results, they had to stay in the hospital, using beds and requiring staff who could otherwise have been assigned to other patients.

The doctors and nurse who cared for these presumptive COVID-19 patients also had to take time suiting up in PPE before seeing them; much of that scarce PPE was wasted on those who were later found not to have the illness.

As one administrator explained to OIG, “Sitting with 60 patients with presumed positives in our hospital isn’t healthy for anybody.”

Delayed test results also reduced hospitals’ ability to provide care by sidelining clinicians who reported COVID-19 symptoms. In one hospital, 20% to 25% of staff were determined to be presumptively positive for COVID-19. As a result of their tests not being analyzed promptly, these doctors and nurses were prevented from providing clinical services for longer than necessary.
 

Supply Shortages

The report also described some factors contributing to mask shortages. Because of the fear factor, for example, all staff members in one hospital were wearing masks, instead of just those in designated areas. An administrator said the hospital was using 2,000 masks a day, 10 times the number before the COVID-19 crisis.

Another hospital received 2,300 N95 masks from a state reserve, but they were unusable because the elastic bands had dry-rotted.

Meanwhile, some vendors were profiteering. Masks that used to cost 50 cents now sold for $6 each, one administrator said.

To combat the supply chain disruptions, some facilities were buying PPE from nontraditional sources such as online retailers, home supply stores, paint stores, autobody supply shops, and beauty salons. Other hospitals were using non–medical-grade PPE such as construction masks and handmade masks and gowns.

Other hospitals reported they were conserving and reusing PPE to stretch their supplies. In some cases, they had even changed policies to reduce the extent and frequency of patient interactions with clinicians so the latter would have to change their gear less often.

Shortages of other critical supplies and materials were also reported. Hospitals were running out of supplies that supported patient rooms, such as IV poles, medical gas, linens, toilet paper, and food.

Hospitals across the country were also expecting or experiencing a shortage of ventilators, although none said any patients had been denied access to them. Some institutions were adapting anesthesia machines and single-use emergency transport ventilators.

Also concerning to hospitals was the shortage of intensive-care specialists and nurses to operate the ventilators and care for critically ill patients. Some facilities were training anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and other nonintensivists on how to use the lifesaving equipment.

Meanwhile, patients with COVID-19 symptoms were continuing to show up in droves at emergency departments. Hospitals were concerned about potential shortages of ICU beds, negative-pressure rooms, and isolation units. Given limited bed availability, some administrators said, it was getting hard to separate COVID-19 from non–COVID-19 patients.
 

What Hospitals Want

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to mount, many hospitals are facing financial emergencies as well, the report noted.

“Hospitals described increasing costs and decreasing revenues as a threat to their financial viability. Hospitals reported that ceasing elective procedures and other services decreased revenues at the same time that their costs have increased as they prepare for a potential surge of patients. Many hospitals reported that their cash reserves were quickly depleting, which could disrupt ongoing hospital operations,” the authors write.

This report was conducted a few days before the passage of the CURES Act, which earmarked $100 billion for hospitals on the frontline of the crisis. As a recent analysis of financial hospital data revealed, however, even with the 20% bump in Medicare payments for COVID-19 care that this cash infusion represents, many hospitals will face a cash-flow crunch within 60 to 90 days, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Besides higher Medicare payments, the OIG report said, hospitals wanted the government to drop the 14-day waiting period for reimbursement and to offer them loans and grants.

Hospitals also want federal and state governments to relax regulations on professional licensing of, and business relationships with, doctors and other clinicians. They’d like the government to:

• Let them reassign licensed professionals within their hospitals and across healthcare networks
• Provide flexibility with respect to licensed professionals practicing across state lines
• Provide relief from regulations that may restrict using contracted staff or physicians based on business relationships

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospitals across the country encountered severe challenges as the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic swept over them, and they anticipated much worse to come, according to a new report from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

From March 23 to 27, the OIG interviewed 323 hospitals of several types in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The report it pulled together from these interviews is intended to help HHS manage the crisis, rather than to review its response to the pandemic, the OIG said.

The most significant hospital challenges, the report states, were testing and caring for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and protecting staff members. In addition, the hospitals faced challenges in maintaining or expanding their capacities to treat COVID-19 patients and ensuring the adequacy of basic supplies.

The critical shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and test kits in hospitals have been widely reported by the media. But the OIG report also focused on some areas that have received less press attention.

To begin with, the shortage of tests has not only slowed the national response to the pandemic, but has had a major impact on inpatient care, according to the report’s authors. The limited number of test kits means that only symptomatic staff members and patients can be tested; in some hospitals, there aren’t even enough tests for that, and some facilities subdivided the test kits they had, the report states.

Moreover, the test results often took 7 days or more to come back from commercial or government labs, the report states. In the meantime, symptomatic patients were presumed to have the coronavirus. While awaiting the results, they had to stay in the hospital, using beds and requiring staff who could otherwise have been assigned to other patients.

The doctors and nurse who cared for these presumptive COVID-19 patients also had to take time suiting up in PPE before seeing them; much of that scarce PPE was wasted on those who were later found not to have the illness.

As one administrator explained to OIG, “Sitting with 60 patients with presumed positives in our hospital isn’t healthy for anybody.”

Delayed test results also reduced hospitals’ ability to provide care by sidelining clinicians who reported COVID-19 symptoms. In one hospital, 20% to 25% of staff were determined to be presumptively positive for COVID-19. As a result of their tests not being analyzed promptly, these doctors and nurses were prevented from providing clinical services for longer than necessary.
 

Supply Shortages

The report also described some factors contributing to mask shortages. Because of the fear factor, for example, all staff members in one hospital were wearing masks, instead of just those in designated areas. An administrator said the hospital was using 2,000 masks a day, 10 times the number before the COVID-19 crisis.

Another hospital received 2,300 N95 masks from a state reserve, but they were unusable because the elastic bands had dry-rotted.

Meanwhile, some vendors were profiteering. Masks that used to cost 50 cents now sold for $6 each, one administrator said.

To combat the supply chain disruptions, some facilities were buying PPE from nontraditional sources such as online retailers, home supply stores, paint stores, autobody supply shops, and beauty salons. Other hospitals were using non–medical-grade PPE such as construction masks and handmade masks and gowns.

Other hospitals reported they were conserving and reusing PPE to stretch their supplies. In some cases, they had even changed policies to reduce the extent and frequency of patient interactions with clinicians so the latter would have to change their gear less often.

Shortages of other critical supplies and materials were also reported. Hospitals were running out of supplies that supported patient rooms, such as IV poles, medical gas, linens, toilet paper, and food.

Hospitals across the country were also expecting or experiencing a shortage of ventilators, although none said any patients had been denied access to them. Some institutions were adapting anesthesia machines and single-use emergency transport ventilators.

Also concerning to hospitals was the shortage of intensive-care specialists and nurses to operate the ventilators and care for critically ill patients. Some facilities were training anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and other nonintensivists on how to use the lifesaving equipment.

Meanwhile, patients with COVID-19 symptoms were continuing to show up in droves at emergency departments. Hospitals were concerned about potential shortages of ICU beds, negative-pressure rooms, and isolation units. Given limited bed availability, some administrators said, it was getting hard to separate COVID-19 from non–COVID-19 patients.
 

What Hospitals Want

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to mount, many hospitals are facing financial emergencies as well, the report noted.

“Hospitals described increasing costs and decreasing revenues as a threat to their financial viability. Hospitals reported that ceasing elective procedures and other services decreased revenues at the same time that their costs have increased as they prepare for a potential surge of patients. Many hospitals reported that their cash reserves were quickly depleting, which could disrupt ongoing hospital operations,” the authors write.

This report was conducted a few days before the passage of the CURES Act, which earmarked $100 billion for hospitals on the frontline of the crisis. As a recent analysis of financial hospital data revealed, however, even with the 20% bump in Medicare payments for COVID-19 care that this cash infusion represents, many hospitals will face a cash-flow crunch within 60 to 90 days, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Besides higher Medicare payments, the OIG report said, hospitals wanted the government to drop the 14-day waiting period for reimbursement and to offer them loans and grants.

Hospitals also want federal and state governments to relax regulations on professional licensing of, and business relationships with, doctors and other clinicians. They’d like the government to:

• Let them reassign licensed professionals within their hospitals and across healthcare networks
• Provide flexibility with respect to licensed professionals practicing across state lines
• Provide relief from regulations that may restrict using contracted staff or physicians based on business relationships

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospitals across the country encountered severe challenges as the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic swept over them, and they anticipated much worse to come, according to a new report from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

From March 23 to 27, the OIG interviewed 323 hospitals of several types in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The report it pulled together from these interviews is intended to help HHS manage the crisis, rather than to review its response to the pandemic, the OIG said.

The most significant hospital challenges, the report states, were testing and caring for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and protecting staff members. In addition, the hospitals faced challenges in maintaining or expanding their capacities to treat COVID-19 patients and ensuring the adequacy of basic supplies.

The critical shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and test kits in hospitals have been widely reported by the media. But the OIG report also focused on some areas that have received less press attention.

To begin with, the shortage of tests has not only slowed the national response to the pandemic, but has had a major impact on inpatient care, according to the report’s authors. The limited number of test kits means that only symptomatic staff members and patients can be tested; in some hospitals, there aren’t even enough tests for that, and some facilities subdivided the test kits they had, the report states.

Moreover, the test results often took 7 days or more to come back from commercial or government labs, the report states. In the meantime, symptomatic patients were presumed to have the coronavirus. While awaiting the results, they had to stay in the hospital, using beds and requiring staff who could otherwise have been assigned to other patients.

The doctors and nurse who cared for these presumptive COVID-19 patients also had to take time suiting up in PPE before seeing them; much of that scarce PPE was wasted on those who were later found not to have the illness.

As one administrator explained to OIG, “Sitting with 60 patients with presumed positives in our hospital isn’t healthy for anybody.”

Delayed test results also reduced hospitals’ ability to provide care by sidelining clinicians who reported COVID-19 symptoms. In one hospital, 20% to 25% of staff were determined to be presumptively positive for COVID-19. As a result of their tests not being analyzed promptly, these doctors and nurses were prevented from providing clinical services for longer than necessary.
 

Supply Shortages

The report also described some factors contributing to mask shortages. Because of the fear factor, for example, all staff members in one hospital were wearing masks, instead of just those in designated areas. An administrator said the hospital was using 2,000 masks a day, 10 times the number before the COVID-19 crisis.

Another hospital received 2,300 N95 masks from a state reserve, but they were unusable because the elastic bands had dry-rotted.

Meanwhile, some vendors were profiteering. Masks that used to cost 50 cents now sold for $6 each, one administrator said.

To combat the supply chain disruptions, some facilities were buying PPE from nontraditional sources such as online retailers, home supply stores, paint stores, autobody supply shops, and beauty salons. Other hospitals were using non–medical-grade PPE such as construction masks and handmade masks and gowns.

Other hospitals reported they were conserving and reusing PPE to stretch their supplies. In some cases, they had even changed policies to reduce the extent and frequency of patient interactions with clinicians so the latter would have to change their gear less often.

Shortages of other critical supplies and materials were also reported. Hospitals were running out of supplies that supported patient rooms, such as IV poles, medical gas, linens, toilet paper, and food.

Hospitals across the country were also expecting or experiencing a shortage of ventilators, although none said any patients had been denied access to them. Some institutions were adapting anesthesia machines and single-use emergency transport ventilators.

Also concerning to hospitals was the shortage of intensive-care specialists and nurses to operate the ventilators and care for critically ill patients. Some facilities were training anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and other nonintensivists on how to use the lifesaving equipment.

Meanwhile, patients with COVID-19 symptoms were continuing to show up in droves at emergency departments. Hospitals were concerned about potential shortages of ICU beds, negative-pressure rooms, and isolation units. Given limited bed availability, some administrators said, it was getting hard to separate COVID-19 from non–COVID-19 patients.
 

What Hospitals Want

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to mount, many hospitals are facing financial emergencies as well, the report noted.

“Hospitals described increasing costs and decreasing revenues as a threat to their financial viability. Hospitals reported that ceasing elective procedures and other services decreased revenues at the same time that their costs have increased as they prepare for a potential surge of patients. Many hospitals reported that their cash reserves were quickly depleting, which could disrupt ongoing hospital operations,” the authors write.

This report was conducted a few days before the passage of the CURES Act, which earmarked $100 billion for hospitals on the frontline of the crisis. As a recent analysis of financial hospital data revealed, however, even with the 20% bump in Medicare payments for COVID-19 care that this cash infusion represents, many hospitals will face a cash-flow crunch within 60 to 90 days, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Besides higher Medicare payments, the OIG report said, hospitals wanted the government to drop the 14-day waiting period for reimbursement and to offer them loans and grants.

Hospitals also want federal and state governments to relax regulations on professional licensing of, and business relationships with, doctors and other clinicians. They’d like the government to:

• Let them reassign licensed professionals within their hospitals and across healthcare networks
• Provide flexibility with respect to licensed professionals practicing across state lines
• Provide relief from regulations that may restrict using contracted staff or physicians based on business relationships

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.