Does the Medicare Telehealth Parity Act of 2014 Stand a Chance?

09 October 2014 Health Care Law Today Blog

“Telehealth saves money and helps save lives. By expanding telehealth services, we can make sure the best care and the best treatments are available to all Americans, no matter where they live.”

With those words, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) introduced forward-looking, bipartisan legislation co-sponsored by himself and Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) — the Medicare Telehealth Parity Act of 2014. The Act proposes a three-phase rollout of changes to the way that telemedicine services are reimbursed by Medicare and expands coverage not only for residents of rural areas, but urban areas as well.

  • Phase 1: This phase expands the availability and use of video conferencing and store-and-forward technologies (e.g., video, data, radiology images) to all federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics, and in counties within Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with populations fewer than 50,000. This includes “walk-in retail health clinics.” Additionally, the bill expands telehealth coverage for services provided by certified diabetes educators, speech language therapists, audiologists, respiratory therapists, occupational therapists, and physical therapists. Finally, this phase includes coverage for remote patient monitoring (RPM) of certain chronic health conditions, including diabetes, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
  • Phase 2: This phase expands coverage of video conferencing and store-and-forward technologies (e.g., video, data, radiology images) to MSAs with populations between 50,000 – 100,000. It also introduces coverage for services provided at a “home telehealth site.”
  • Phase 3: This phase expands coverage of video conferencing and store-and-forward technologies (e.g., video, data, radiology images) to metropolitan statistical areas with populations greater than 100,000. It also expands coverage for to include “walk-in retail health clinics” located in MSAs with populations greater than 100,000.

Each phase represents a two-year period. The phased approach is supported by both the American Telemedicine Association (ATA) and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), and may seem more palatable to legislators, providers, and patients.

Rep. Thompson himself is no stranger to telemedicine legislation, having introduced the Medicare Telehealth Parity Act back in 2012. That bill proposed to amend the Social Security Act to cover telemedicine services for instances in which corresponding in-person treatment would be covered. However, that bill died in committee.

As of this post date, the Medicare Telehealth Parity Act of 2014 bill is sitting with the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. According to, the Act’s prognosis is not stellar. Generally, only 11 percent of bills make it out of committee, and of those, only three percent were enacted from 2011-2013. That said, the Act represents continued progress towards expanded telehealth reimbursement, reflecting increasing support for telehealth among federal lawmakers. Telehealth companies should recognize the importance of this Act, as it constitutes an opportunity for them to contribute their voice and help shape public policy on telehealth reimbursement.

We will continue to monitor the bill’s progress, so check back for updates. Learn more at

Do you think the Act will pass muster or meet a similar fate as the 2012 bill? Continue the discussion in the comments section.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.