Texas Lawmaker Calls for Permanent Payment Parity for Telehealth

A Texas lawmaker is making a push for permanent payment parity for telehealth.

State Rep. Julie Johnson, a Dallas-based Democrat, introduced a bill last month that would ensure that healthcare providers in the Lone Star State – including mental health professionals – are reimbursed for telehealth services “on the same basis and at least the same rate” as they’re reimbursed for services delivered in person.

The bill, which would go into effect on Sept. 1, 2021 if enacted, puts Texas in the middle of a long-running debate over whether connected health services should be valued at the same rate as in-person care. Many in the payer industry have argued that payers should be able to negotiate their own rates with providers, particularly when one of the arguments behind telehealth adoption is that it reduces costs.

Others have argued that providers should be reimbursed at the same rate for both types of service for now, so that they’re more inclined to adopt the technology, and that reimbursement rates can be adjusted later when more is known about value.

To help expand access to and coverage of telehealth services during the coronavirus pandemic, federal and state officials enacted a number of emergency measures, including in some cases provisions for parity. This includes Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott extended payment parity for telehealth through the end of the year.

“Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, the State of Texas has expanded telehealth options and availability so that Texans can continue to access the health care services they need,” Abbott said in a September press release. “Millions of Texans have chosen to use telemedicine over the past several months, and this new agreement with Texas network health insurers will help ensure that Texans can continue utilizing telehealth options. I thank the health plans for stepping up to meet the needs of our state during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In Ohio, meanwhile, lawmakers are debating new telehealth guidelines that steer clear of payment parity. That strategy was supported by the Buckeye Institute, which issued a report in September opposing payment parity.

“Private insurers have recognized the promise of telehealth and have already shown a willingness to expand telehealth coverage, but they are still learning where the true potential and value for telehealth really lies,” James Woodward, PhD, an analyst with the Columbus-based think tank, said in the report. “A payment parity requirement at this early stage would prematurely signal that telehealth treatment options are interchangeable with in-person visits in terms of cost and quality. Medical studies, however, do not warrant this conclusion or pricing structure inasmuch as there are still many areas in which telehealth’s medical value is not yet established.”