Young male doctor in telehealth concept

Telehealth amid COVID-19: What Health Care Providers Should Know

By Adriana Krasniansky

COVID-19 stands to be a watershed moment for telehealth adoption within the U.S. healthcare system.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (part of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS) announced expanded Medicare telehealth coverage for over 80 health services, to be delivered over video or audio channels. Additionally, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced it would waive potential Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) penalties for good faith use of telehealth during the emergency. Both measures are designed to enable patients to receive a wider range of health care services remotely, reducing clinical congestion and limiting transmission of the virus. 

In the midst of this emergency situation, health care providers can take measures to consider the ethical and legal aspects of tele-practice as they get started. This article is a short primer to help medical professionals understand telehealth in this moment, navigate regulations and technology practice standards, and choose technologies to support quality patient care. Read More

New technologies are empowering persons with disabilities. But are they Assistive?

Consumer tech has reduced daily friction for countless individuals, making it easier to control households, shop for groceries, and connect with loved ones. These technologies can be especially empowering for persons with disabilities, increasing accessibility and resolving frustrations of everyday activities. You may have seen related news in press releases and popular headlines: “Alexa is a Revelation to the Blind,” “Disabled Americans Deserve the Benefit of Self-Driving Cars,” “Amazon Alexa Can Help People With Autism Do More On Their Own.”

But are these technologies assistive? Disability nonprofit Understood.org defines assistive technology as “any device, software, or equipment that helps people work around their challenges.” Classifying a device or software as assistive technology (and/or related regulatory labels) can lead to insurance coverage and tax incentives. It can change how devices are viewed in healthcare settings and impact product research and design. In this article, we speak with bioethicist and disability scholar Dr. Joseph Stramondo about how to define assistive technologies in today’s consumer tech revolution. 

Read More

A calculator, a stethoscope, and a stack of money rest on a table.

Why Our Health Care Is Incomplete: Review of “Exposed” (Part II)

By: Daniel Aaron

Just last month, Professor Christopher T. Robertson, at the University of Arizona College of Law, released his new book about health care, entitled Exposed: Why Our Health Insurance Is Incomplete and What Can Be Done About It. Part II of this book review offers an analytical discussion of “cost exposure,” the main subject of his book with a focus on solutions. Read Part I here.

Baby solutions

Prof. Robertson writes two chapters on solutions. In the first, titled “Fixes We Could Try,” he offers reforms, from mild to moderate, that would make cost exposure less harmful. The chapter largely retains the analytical nature of the prior chapters, but it comes across like a chapter he might have rather not written. This is evident in the following chapter’s title, “What We Must Do.” It’s also evident because some of the proposals do not seem fully considered, and in some ways appear more controversial than the more comprehensive solution offered later. Read More

A calculator, a stethoscope, and a stack of money rest on a table.

Why Our Health Care Is Incomplete: Review of “Exposed” (Part I)

By: Daniel Aaron

Just last month, Professor Christopher T. Robertson, at the University of Arizona College of Law, released his new book about health care, entitled Exposed: Why Our Health Insurance Is Incomplete and What Can Be Done About It. This book review will offer an analytical discussion of “cost exposure,” the main subject of his book.

What is cost exposure in health care?

Cost exposure is payments people make related to their medical care. There are many ways patients pay – here are a few common ones.

  • Deductible – Patient is responsible for the first, say, $5,000 of their medical care; after this point, the health insurance kicks in. Resets each year.
  • Copay – Patient pays a specific amount, say $25, when having an episode of care.
  • Coinsurance – Patient pays a specified percentage, say 20%, of care.

Read More

Illustration of a family and large clipboard with items in a list checked off. All are underneath a large blue umbrella

Universal Coverage Does Not Mean Single Payer

This post is part of our Eighth Annual Health Law Year in P/Review symposium. You can read all of the posts in the series here. Review the conference’s full agenda and register for the event on the Petrie-Flom Center’s website.

By Joseph Antos, American Enterprise Institute

Health spending in every major developed country is substantially below that of the U.S., and measured health outcomes appear to be better. Progressives have jumped to the conclusion that adopting single-payer health care would yield a simpler system in which everyone is covered, costs are reduced, and outcomes are improved. The truth is far more complicated.

Most other countries have a mix of public and private coverage. One size does not fit all, even in Europe. The government is the predominant purchaser of medical services in Canada and the U.K. In France and Australia, the government is the primary purchase but many people purchase private supplemental coverage. The government subsidizes individually-purchased insurance in Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Germany relies on employer coverage, akin to employer-sponsored coverage in the U.S. Read More

Broken, frayed net, representing a broken social safety net

Are Work Requirements Sinking as Arizona and Indiana Abandon Ship?

By Nicolas Terry

There’s an old saying, credited to Will Rogers, “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!” When it comes to Medicaid work requirements there has been mounting evidence that excavation cessation would be good advice for states considering this misguided attempt at social engineering. After all, work requirement waivers face unrelenting legal challenges, an obdurate CMS apparently unable to fashion a lawful waiver, mountains of bad data, and increasingly poor optics. Two weeks ago Arizona, which had yet to implement its program, jumped ship notifying CMS that it was postponing implementation. This week Indiana, which began implementation at the beginning of the year, announced a similar postponement.

According to the KFF Medicaid Waiver Tracker, CMS has approved applications from nine states for Section 1115 work requirement (or “community engagement”) waivers. Nine more are pending. Of the nine states with approvals, three (Arkansas, Kentucky, and New Hampshire) have had them overturned by D.C. Circuit Judge Boasberg. Work requirement poster state Kentucky even had a second, revised waiver overturned. Of the six other approved states, five (Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Utah, and Wisconsin) have yet to implement their work requirements. Until this week, the sixth, Indiana, had been performing a slow and litigation-free roll out. However, with its work requirement sanctions about to get serious, a few weeks ago Indiana also found itself on Judge Boasberg’s docket.

Read More

The Week in Health Law podcast logo twihl.com

Matthew Cortland on “The Week in Health Law” Podcast

By Nicolas Terry

This week’s guest is Matthew Cortland, a patient and health care rights advocate from Massachusetts. He received his graduate training in public health from Boston University and earned a J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He is disabled and chronically ill, a superbly effective lawyer, writer, and speaker as well as a well-known health care and disability rights activist.

Read More

Photograph from above of a health care provider taking a patient's blood pressure.

Diving Deeper into Amazon Alexa’s HIPAA Compliance

By Adriana Krasniansky

Earlier this year, consumer technology company Amazon made waves in health care when it announced that its Alexa Skills Kit, a suite of tools for building voice programs, would be HIPAA compliant. Using the Alexa Skills Kit, companies could build voice experiences for Amazon Echo devices that communicate personal health information with patients. 

Amazon initially limited access to its HIPAA-updated voice platform to six health care companies, ranging from pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to hospitals. However, Amazon plans to expand access and has identified health care as a top focus area. Given Thursday’s announcement of new Alexa-enabled wearables (earbuds, glasses, a biometric ring)—likely indicators of upcoming personal health applications—let’s dive deeper into Alexa’s HIPAA compliance and its implications for the health care industry.
Read More

Photograph of a Medicare for All rally

Medicare-for-All Wouldn’t be Medicare if it Eliminated Private Insurance

By Robert Field

Should Medicare-for-All replace private insurance? That question, although central to many current health reform debates, presents a fundamental contradiction. If Medicare-for-All were to eliminate private coverage, it wouldn’t be Medicare, which has made room for private insurers from the start.

Medicare could have been designed as a pure single payer with comprehensive coverage for all health care needs. However, that approach would have risked alienating several important constituencies, including the insurance industry, and provoking their opposition. Before the program was enacted, private Insurers enjoyed a sizeable market through which they sold coverage of some sort to about half the nation’s elderly. Medicare eliminated that market but created an attractive new one to replace it. It did this by enabling insurers to sell Medigap policies that filled some of the program’s most significant coverage gaps, such as coverage for vision and dental care, and that reduced or eliminated its sizeable copayments and deductibles. When the program launched, more than 80 percent of beneficiaries who had previously maintained private coverage purchased these new supplemental policies. Medicare also gave some insurers the chance to earn additional revenue by administering claims as carriers and intermediaries.

Read More

Protesters hold up signs that read "everyone deserves healthcare"

The Future of Health Care? How States are Trailblazing Medicaid Buy-In Programs

States can be laboratories of health reform.

Massachusetts and Oregon expanded insurance coverage during previous periods of federal inaction, and with solutions unlikely to come from a politically divided Washington D.C., how will states tackle the problem of health insurance becoming increasingly unaffordable and unattainable for many families?

Is there a role for the government to play a greater role in making health insurance affordable and accessible? As public support for action on health care grows, what options are available to states now?

I spoke to former Petrie-Flom Student Fellow and Medicaid policy scholar Emma Sandoe about states that have begun to explore Medicaid Buy-In policies, which allow people to purchase government backed health insurance or Medicaid-like plans. Read More