Georgia Governor Vetoes Telehealth Licensure Compact Bill for Specialists

Georgia’s governor has vetoed legislation that would have paved the way for audiologists and speech-language pathologists in the state to use telehealth to treat patients in other states.

Gov. Brian Kemp last month vetoed SB 306, which had sailed through both chambers of the state’s Legislature. The bill sought to make Georgia the sixth state in the country to join the Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Interstate Compact.

In his veto message, Kemp said the bill hadn’t been vetted by the Georgia Occupational Regulation Review Council, which weighs the value of new bills and regulations. In addition, he noted the compact requires 10 states to become operational, and no other states are currently considering legislation to join the effort.

Developed by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), the compact would enable member states to communicate and exchange information with each other on issues including license verification and disciplinary sanctions. The goal is to enable providers in member states to treat patients across state lines, either in person or through connected health.

To date, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, West Virginia and North Carolina have signed on.

Audiologists and speech and language pathologists have long seen telehealth as a means of reaching patients in underserved areas and a platform for expanding each provider’s patient base – a valuable tool when considering the limited number of providers and the fact that many are clustered in urban areas.

The effort is modeled after the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which is now active in roughly half the country and gives doctors an expedited pathway to apply for licenses in member states, as well as licensing compacts for nurses, physical therapists, psychologists and, more recently, EMS providers.

Many telehealth advocates feel that adoption has been stifled by state regulations that make it difficult for providers to use telehealth in multiple states, and they’ve pointed to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which allows its doctors to treat veterans in any state, as an example of how the system should work.

But the arguments against compacts are just as numerous, ranging from the preservation of state rights to concerns that compacts could be abused or rendered ineffective by states that refuse to join (to wit, while half the country is included in the IMLC, the other half isn’t, and the number of states considering joining the compact has dropped off).

Other ideas to spur telehealth adoption have surfaced as well. They include one license to practice medicine in every state, issued by the federal government and managed by each state, or a license that allows providers to use telehealth to treat patients in any other state.

The effort has been fueled by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, during which several states have relaxed their licensing guidelines to enable their doctors and those in other states to treat patients via telehealth. But those license portability measures will only last as long as the public health emergency is in place, and many question whether portability or interstate licensure will be included in any long-term telehealth coverage plans being considered by federal or state governments.