Telehealth turned Jill Hill’s life around.

The 63-year-old lives on the edge of rural Grass Valley, an old mining town in the Sierra Nevada foothills of northern California. She was devastated after her husband Dennis passed away in the fall of 2014 after a long series of medical and financial setbacks.

“I was grief-stricken and my self-esteem was down,” Hill remembers. “I didn’t care about myself. I didn’t brush my hair. I was isolated. I just kind of locked myself in the bedroom.”

Hill says knew she needed therapy to deal with her deepening depression. But the main health center in her rural town had just two therapists. Hill was told she’d only be able to see a therapist once a month.

Then, Brandy Hartsgrove called to say Hill was eligible via MediCal (California’s version of Medicaid) for a program that could offer her 30-minute video counseling sessions twice a week. The sessions would be via a computer screen with a therapist who was hundreds of miles south, in San Diego.

Hartsgrove co-ordinates telehealth for the Chapa-de Indian Health Clinic, which is a 10-minute drive from Hills’s home. Hill would sit in a comfy chair facing a screen in a small private room, Hartsgrove explained, to see and talk with her counselor in an otherwise traditional therapy session.

Hill thought it sounded “a bit impersonal;” but was desperate for the counseling. She agreed to give it a try.

Hill is one of a growing number of Americans turning to telehealth appointments with medical providers in the wake of widespread hospital closings in remote communities, and a shortage of local primary care doctors, specialists and other providers.

Long-distance doctor-to-doctor consultations via video also fall under the “telehealth” or “telemedicine” rubric.

A recent NPR poll of rural Americans found that nearly a quarter have used some kind of telehealth service within the past few years; 14% say they received a diagnosis or treatment from a doctor or other health care professional using email, text messaging, live text chat, a mobile app, or a live video like FaceTime or Skype. And 15% say they have received a diagnosis or treatment from a doctor or other health professional over the phone.

Don’t see the graphic above? Click here.

Those survey findings are part of the second of two recent polls on rural life and health conducted by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The Chapa-de clinic offers telehealth services not only for consultations in behavioral health and psychiatry, but also in cardiology, nephrology, dermatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology and more.

Hill feels fortunate; she knows most rural health facilities don’t include telehealth services, which means most patients living in remote areas would need their own broadband internet access at home to get therapy online.

And that’s out of reach for many, says Robert J. Blendon, co-director of NPR’s poll and professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard Chan School.

The poll found that one in five rural Americans say getting access to high-speed internet is a problem for their families.

Blendon says advances in online technology have brought a “revolution” in healthcare that has left many rural patients behind.

“They lose the ability to contact their physicians, fill prescriptions and get follow-up information without having to go see a health professional,” he says.

Critical care pediatrician James Marcin at UC Davis Children’s Hospital, directs the University of California, Davis, Center for Health and Technology and regularly consults via a telehealth monitor with primary care doctors in remote hospitals in rural areas.

“We’re able to put the telemedicine cart [virtually] at the patient’s bedside,” Marcin says, “and within minutes our physicians are able to see the child and talk with the family members and help assist in the care that way.”

If not for telehealth, Marcin says, the costs of getting what should be routine care “are significant barriers for those living in rural communities.”

“We have patients that drive to our Sacramento offices and they have to drive the night before,” he says, “and spend the night in a hotel because it’s a five-hour trip each way.” And there are additional costs for many patients, he says, such as childcare services, and missed days of work.

With telehealth, “a video is truly worth a thousand words,” he says; it can mean patients don’t have to make costly time-consuming trips to see a specialist.

Though Hill initially had reservations about meeting with a therapist online, she says she’s been amazed by how helpful the sessions have been.

“She gives me assignments and works me really hard,” Hill says, “and I have grown so much — especially just in the last few months.”

Her latest assignment in therapy: writing down positive characteristics of herself. Initially, she could only come up with three: loyalty, compassion and resilience. But the therapist questioned that, and encouraged Hill to consider that there might be more.

“She wanted 10,” says Hill, who proceeded to work through some other issues and talk more with therapist. “Now I’ve got like 15 at least,” Hill says, “and I keep adding to the list; once I started writing things down, I started really seeing that I have a lot of strengths I didn’t even know I had.”

Attorney Mei Kwong, executive director of the Center for Connected Health Policy in Sacramento, says telehealth services have the potential to remove many barriers to good health care in rural America.

But policies that regulate which telehealth services get paid for “lag way behind the technology,” Kwong says. Many policies are 10 to 15 years behind what the technology is able to do, she says.

For example, high-resolution photos can now be taken – and sent anywhere digitally — of skin conditions that many doctors say are better than “the naked eye looking at the condition,” she says. But the policies on the books of what Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers will pay for often means these services are not fully covered.

That’s unfortunate, Kwong says, especially for underserved communities where there is a shortage of specialists.

Changes are starting to be made in state, federal and private insurance policies, Kwong says. But it’s “slow going.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

When Mary Kay Gilbert saw her doctor in May for a skin infection on her leg, she wasn’t surprised to receive a prescription for an antibiotic cream.

But Gilbert, 54, a nurse and health consultant, was shocked when her physician clicked on the desktop computer and told Gilbert the medicine would cost $30 on her Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan.

“I was like, ‘Wow — that’s pretty cool that you know that information,’ ” she recalled telling the doctor in Edina, Minn.

Allina Health, the large Minnesota-based hospital network Gilbert’s doctor belongs to, is one of a growing number of health systems and insurers providing real-time drug pricing information to physicians so they can help patients avoid “sticker shock” at the pharmacy.

The pricing tool, which is embedded in each participating physician’s electronic health records and prescribing system, shows how much patients can expect to pay out-of-pocket, based on their insurance and the pharmacy they choose.

It also allows the doctor to find a cheaper alternative, when possible, and start the process of getting authorization for a drug, if the insurer requires that.

The soaring cost of drugs has been front and center in the growing national debate about revamping U.S. health care.

Patients abandon hundreds of thousands of prescriptions each year at the pharmacy, often because of high prices. Studies show that can jeopardize their health and often lead to higher costs down the road.

Such a tool can help consumers — many of whom are also facing increasing copayments and higher deductibles — learn about cheaper options in the doctor’s office.

Still, doctors have been slow to adopt the technology, sometimes because of concerns about getting bogged down in long discussions about drug costs. Humana, for example, introduced its drug pricing tool to its network of doctors in 2015. Today, fewer than 10% are using it, according to Humana officials.

These sorts of pricing tools do have serious limitations. Because price negotiations among insurers, drugmakers and middlemen are often highly competitive and secretive, the tools often don’t have useful data for every patient.

For example, Allina’s works for only about half its patients. The company says that’s because not all pharmacy benefit managers share their data on health plan enrollee costs, and those that do often provide only a fraction of their information.

“It’s a chicken-and-egg thing where doctors don’t use it because they don’t have the data for all their patients, and health plans don’t promote it to physicians because doctors don’t have the technology in place,” says Anthony Schueth, a health information technology consultant in Jacksonville, Fla. “It can be a powerful tool when it works, but at the moment the drivers are not there across the board for widespread adoption.”

At a hearing last month, Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz, pressed a top Trump administration health official about why many patients lack access to information on prescription drug prices at their doctor’s office.

“This is America. Why can’t we have this tool available tool now?” she asked. “The data is out there; the information is out there. What is it going to take to make this happen?”

The technology got a boost last month when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services mandated that all Medicare drug plans embed such a tool in their doctors’ electronic prescribing system starting in 2021.

The details of what consumers spend out-of-pocket for drugs is provided by pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. They are the middlemen that negotiate with drugmakers on the prices insurers will pay for the medications and which ones the insurers will cover. So a tool’s usefulness is undermined when key PBMs are not included in the listings.

For example, a drug pricing tool sold by Surescripts, which is owned partly by the PBMs CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, includes data from those companies, but not from OptumRx, a PBM owned by insurance titan UnitedHealth. And the OptumRX drug pricing tool includes Optum data but not that of Express Scripts and CVS.

Demetrios Kouzoukas, who heads the Medicare program for CMS, says he hopes the program’s new drug mandate will spark the industry to provide doctors and patients access to a standard pricing tool, regardless of their insurance.

“What we are hoping and expecting is that there will be a standard that’s developed by the industry … so that the tool is available in all the electronic health records, for all the doctors and all patients, and spreads even beyond Medicare,” he told McSally at the hearing.

But cooperation does not seem to be on the horizon, some health industry officials say.

“I don’t see any chance that there will be a centralized system that will connect all of the plans/PBMs with all of the EHR systems currently in use anytime soon,” says Thomas Borzilleri, CEO of InteliSys Health, a health technology company based in San Diego.

Still, the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs, a nonprofit group that helps set guidelines for the pharmacy industry, has been working on standards for a drug pricing tool. John Klimek, a senior vice president of the nonprofit, predicts that by next year doctors across the country will be able to use the same drug pricing tool to look up all their patients’ drug costs, regardless of the insurer.

Even without such a standard in place, doctors and hospitals have an incentive to use the tool that goes beyond saving their patients money: Such a tool can be good for a provider’s wallet, too.

For example, Allina, which owns or operates about a dozen hospitals and dozens of clinics in Minnesota and Wisconsin, gets a set fee from some insurers to care for all of a patient’s health needs. So the doctors and health system all benefit when they can reduce costs and improve patients’ adherence to taking their medication, says Dr. David Ingham, a family doctor also from Edina. He’s one of 600 primary care doctors at Allina using the tool.

“When we prescribe a more expensive medication, we share less revenue from the insurance contract,” he says.

For example, he notes that the tool helped him prescribe inhalers to asthma patients.

“I pulled up one medication I normally use, and it said it would be $240 out-of-pocket, but it suggested an alternative for $20 that was pharmacologically equivalent,” Ingham says. “I sheepishly asked the patient which we should choose.”

Dr. Norman Rosen, a family physician in Orange, Calif., who is employed by Providence St. Joseph Health System, is one of 800 doctors who are testing the Blue Shield of California drug pricing tool this year. Based on the first few months of use, the tool is expected to save patients more than $100,000 in out-of-pocket costs this year, according to the companies.

Without the tool, Rosen says, it would be impossible for him to quickly know what drugs are covered by which insurers and what the copays are. He says he already has saved some patients several thousand dollars a year by changing their blood pressure and diabetes medications.

“It doesn’t take a lot of time, and this can be an important intervention,” Rosen says.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit, editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation and is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)