Feb. 7 Agenda: Insurance mandates for telemedicine reimbursement parity

Are in-person and tele-health visits of equal value?

Probably not, if equal reimbursement has to be mandated.

The more difficult question is : who benefits from the mandate? I'm thinking it's the clinicians, but I'm open to other ideas. 

Wednesday, February 7, 2024  1:00 p.m.

LOCATION: Room 1100, Binsfeld Office Building 201 Townsend Street Lansing, MI 48933

CONTACT: Heather Dorbeck, Committee Clerk (517) 373-5323  OfcSCC@senate.michigan.gov

AGENDA

HB 4579 Rep. Price Insurance; health insurers; reimbursement rate for telehealth visits; require to be the same as reimbursements for office visits.

HB 4580 Rep. Brabec Human services; medical services; reimbursement rate for telehealth visits; require to be the same as reimbursements for office visits.

HB 4131 Rep. Liberati Insurance; health insurers; coverage for health care services provided through telemedicine; modify.

HB 4213 Rep. Morse Mental health; code; definition of distant site for a telemedicine visit; provide for.

And any other business properly before the committee.

I didn't listen to today's hearing yet, but I'm fairly certain someone said that remote patients will benefit, because clinicians refuse to provide telehealth if they aren't reimbursed more.

That still makes clinicians the primary beneficiaries - and it turns the whole exercise into a shake-down. At a guess, that last bill points to mental health being among the top instigators and beneficiaries of this legislation. The package nicely tops off medical/mental health parity for them.

Everyone who pays for insurance will get the bill to pay for this rise in prices: employers, people paying premiums, and taxpayers.