Please support Telehealth.org’s ability to deliver helpful news, opinions, and analyses by turning off your ad blocker.
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the efficiency and reimbursement of over-the-phone therapy (also called “over-the-phone counseling” or just “telephone therapy”) have become a hotly debated issue. For years, many stakeholders have argued that health care over the phone was better than no health care, and/or that it should be reimbursed on par with in-person therapy to help improve much-needed access to healthcare providers. Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, telephone use has skyrocketed, and numbers of missed appointments dropped – but now that the end of the current pandemic is within sight, the issue of continued reimbursement for over-the-phone visits is more hotly debated than ever.
Over-the-Phone Therapy During & After the Pandemic
The March 2020 CARES Act included a provision that allowed telephone visits to be reimbursed at the same rate as in-person visits for Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries. Many third-party carriers followed suit. A debate has since raged over whether or not services delivered by telephone are as effective as in-person or video-based formats. In-person or video-based visits are seen as being more valuable, given the extra visual information available during these more visually-based interventions. The issue of a therapist’s ability to better understand whether a client or patient is alone for the meeting or joined by silent participants is also one that can complicate telephone-based privacy. Another is the increased ease of distractibility by one or both parties. See Controversy about Eliminating Telephone Telehealth Coverage for details.
The controversy continues not only with respect to efficacy, but also reimbursement. Some parties claim that audio-only visits are not as effective and therefore, that reimbursement rates should not be equal to in-person visits or video visits. See Telehealth.org’s COVID-19 Telephone Telehealth Reimbursement for more reimbursement specifics, including popular CPT codes.
As the pandemic begins to recede in some areas, the heart of the issue about reimbursement for over-the-phone therapy is that lawmakers nationwide are at odds about how much taxpayer money should be spent on telephone therapy appointments. Proponents of over-the-phone therapy claim that it is in some cases better than in-person or video therapy, such as with patients concerned unduly with their looks, people who don’t have any experience with computers, and people who live in remote areas. This same argument was offered by many email therapy advocates in the 1980’s, 90’s and well into the first decades of the current century. However, to the chagrin of many email therapists, the data has not yet shown acceptable levels of efficacy for email-only interventions to treat a wide variety of disorders. The previously hot debate over email therapy has since subsided.
During this same time, the use of videoconferencing has not only met but in some cases, exceeded the in-person standard and now stands as the digital standard for healthcare. See Telehealth Is As Good As In-Person Care? Consider the Telehealth Evidence. After a year of COVID-required telehealth delivery, many clinicians report a surprisingly positive experience with telehealth. Numerous clinics and hospitals as well as smaller groups and independent practitioners see their future as involving at least a hybrid blending of telehealth and in-person care, or in some cases, telehealth-only care as they move forward.
The often-undiscussed, yet strongly mitigating factor when discussing the use of any technology is the competence of the clinician using it, which in effect, boils down to whether or not the clinician has conducted their own literature review, found the best studies, reviewed them carefully to extract relevant findings, and last but not least, implemented the suggestions made across the best of those studies. In lieu of such rigor, many opt for evidence-based professional training to learn the basics for responsibly addressing clinical, legal, and ethical dilemmas.
Over the Phone Counseling State Actions to Date
While Medicare is weighing options for over-the-phone-therapy or over-the-phone-counseling reimbursement at the federal level, some states are taking matters into their own hands with regard to Medicaid and third-party carriers. For example, New Hampshire passed legislation in March 2020 that mandated Medicaid and private health insurance pay for over-the-phone visits at the same rate as in-person visits. Similarly, Vermont extended its emergency rules for clinicians to be paid the same rates as in-person visits through 2022, with a state working group recommending the practice become permanent. Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, and New York have also passed legislation to count phone visits as telehealth and to pay for them at varying rates. On the other hand, Pennsylvania has passed rules against some forms of telemedicine.
Lowering of Standards for Over-the-Phone Therapy?
The crux of the issue about reimbursing telephone-telehealth is, simply stated, whether telephone-only healthcare is as effective as in-person care. While the efficacy of telehealth via video was clearly established and accepted by CMS during 2012-2013, with numerous foundational studies, the same decades of rigor have not yet been applied to researching the efficacy of telephone-only telehealth or teletherapy.
The concern with over-the-phone therapy centers on whether it reflects a lowering of standards to accommodate disparities for people who otherwise will not have access to care post-COVID. Supporters of this position would agree that while tax dollars should be spent to lower disparities, tax dollars should not be spent on services that are not yet clearly shown to be as effective as in-person care. The fact that disparities prevent in-person care often does not enter into the same argument.
Decision-makers then are facing the difficult decisions of what exactly to change related to reimbursement and CPT codes to effectively balance disparities. For instance, for which procedures and diagnoses should reimbursement be approved? More precisely, which evidence-based protocols for telephone telehealth should be used, and when in the trajectory of one’s care is it most feasible to use telephone-only interventions to achieve acceptable efficacy rates? While some stakeholders negate the relevance of these types of inquiries, legislative decision-makers are held to a higher standard when it comes to spending tax-payer dollars.
Dampening Effect of the GAO Report to Congress
These issues related to the evidence base are not to be minimized, as they were reported as being one of three reasons cited by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) for asking Congress to slow down the approval of telehealth across the board in their May 19 report to Congress. The GOA is recognized as being an independent group that engages in audits and investigations for Congress. Known as the “congressional watchdog” the GOA was commissioned by the original Cares Act “to conduct monitoring and oversight of the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” Additional GAO studies were funded by Biden’s update of the Cares Act in the spring of 2021.
In response, GAO has issued a series of government-wide reports from June 2020 through March 2021. GAO is continuing to monitor and report on these services. The conclusions drawn by these GAO reports to Congress are at least one reason that lawmakers have been reluctant to vote for changes to Medicare reimbursement rates related to telephone telehealth. The specific wording of the GAO’s report regarding the continuation of the COVID-19’s expansions included this one reason for slowing the approvals for continued telehealth across the board, which is pivotal to the discussion herein:
- Beneficiary health and safety. Although telehealth has enabled the safe provision of services, the quality of telehealth services has not been fully analyzed.
The other two reasons for slowing broad-scale approvals were:
- Increased spending. Telehealth waivers can increase spending in both programs, if telehealth services are furnished in addition to in-person services.
- Program integrity. The suspension of some program safeguards has increased the risks of fraud, waste, and abuse that GAO previously noted in its High-Risk report series
For details and how this report applies to telebehavioral health in particular, see Telehealth.org’s June 10, 2021 article entitled, Risks & Benefits of Telehealth: Controversy about Post-Pandemic Telehealth.
In short, the lack of accepted research for some forms of telehealth such as telephone telehealth by groups such as the GAO makes it difficult for elected officials to wholeheartedly support as-yet controversial telephone-only treatment approaches for widescale reimbursement with tax-payer monies through Medicare and Medicaid.
As the pandemic shows signs of abating in some areas, public outcries for long-term telephone therapy reimbursement will inevitably and ultimately rest on the evidence base. Luckily for proponents of over-the-phone interventions, a number of specific telephone-based interventions have been published in 2020 and 2021 show validated efficacy for telephone-based protocols for working with identified populations.
Exactly What Types of Protocols are Clinicians Now Offering Over the Phone?
One doesn’t have to look too far to see that many clinicians have shifted their practices to telephone-based care for more than a year, and prefer it for many reasons. The issue at hand, however, once again, is whether clinicians are competent for the work they are offering the consumer public. Anyone taking professional training can attest to the fact that most clinicians are quite surprised to realize how much they don’t know about telehealth, including telephone-based telehealth.
Some are taking the time to research and implement evidence-based strategies. Many are getting professional training to short-cut the time and energy needed, but most are “making it up” as they go, assuming that they know how to deliver professional services based on prior experience with telephones. Unfortunately, as is often the case with cultural competency/sensitivity/humility, those who need it the most seem to want it the least. And therein lies another part of the problem.
When research is focussed not on what clinicians should be doing but rather, what they are doing in many aspects of US healthcare, clinicians are found to be falling far short of expectations set by the Institute of Medicine and the licensing boards – and they have been for decades. Such poor self-policing by the clinical community also causes alarm in policy-makers, who must look at the facts to see reality rather than see only the positive side of funding services. See Is Phone Therapy Really THAT Simple? and Why Bother with Telehealth Training?
More research is needed to continue validating the already-published data, and that need is currently being addressed by CMS-funded research through the 2121 update to the Cares Act. However, many states are already engaged in debating bills of their own, such as California.
A State Example: California’s Journey Towards a Solution
California’s lawmakers are currently not on the same page regarding reimbursement rates for over-the-phone counseling or over-the-phone telehealth care in general. The Democratic governor’s budget has tasked the state legislature with lowering the rate that Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, to pay for phone visits. Still, the Democratic legislature wants to keep paying the same rate as in-person, and video visits for low-income and disabled people to more easily access services. Currently, AB 32 mandates over-the-phone telehealth be paid at the same rate as video and in-person visits in most settings; the legislation has passed the state Assembly and is under debate in the state Senate.
The California Health Benefits Review Program reviewed the matter and found that patients of color and those who are older or live in rural communities are the people who mostly make use of over-the-phone visits. As a result, the Program argues that reimbursing over-the-phone visits at the same rate as video visits provides more healthcare access to typically vulnerable groups. By contrast, the California Department of Health Care Services only wants to reimburse some phone visits at 65 percent of in-person or video rates, claiming that phone visits don’t provide the same quality as video visits.
Federal Legislation Still Unclear
Congress allowed Medicaid and Medicare to pay for over-the-phone therapy in March 2020 and held hearings in April 2021 about how much to reimburse for over-the-phone therapy. In addition, the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has recommended extending the payments for up to two years after the pandemic. Precisely where this debate will land is as yet unclear.
Advocacy is clearly in order. Readers are encouraged to take 10 minutes to write to both their state and federal legislators and in a single-page letter to voice their concerns in this pivotal debate. Including a short case example or two to illustrate one’s position is strongly suggested.
Telehealth Video & Telephone Best Practices
Delivering telephone or video telehealth without formal professional training? Learn how to make telehealth easy, fun, legal & ethically compliant!
Disclaimer: Telehealth.org offers information as educational material designed to inform you of issues, products, or services potentially of interest. We cannot and do not accept liability for your decisions regarding any information offered. Please conduct your due diligence before taking action. Also, the views and opinions expressed are not intended to malign any organization, company, or individual. Product names, logos, brands, and other trademarks or images are the property of their respective trademark holders. There is no affiliation, sponsorship, or partnership suggested by using these brands unless contained in an ad. We do not and cannot offer legal, ethical, billing technical, medical, or therapeutic advice. Use of this site constitutes your agreement to Telehealth.org Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.
As with many of the comments above, I have been doing telehealth sessions since covid 19 began.Aside from the fact that it is more tiring for me to sit and stare at the screen all day, I find that there is no difference between in person or Telehealth or phone sessions(I have 2 people who prefer phone sessions).Our healthcare system is benefiting the insurers at the top. LCSW’s are paid significantly less for working just as hard. I work hard. I believe in what I do and that it is helping a great many people.
Ask the client population, the receivers of services whether they think this works!
And yes, we need to contact elected officials on every level.
Teletherapy is working for me. My clients prefer it, as they do not have to travel. My couples prefer it because it aligns better with busy schedules and child care issues. I am using Zoom about 90% of the time, and telephone only with a few elderly clients who are not as tech savvy. I am 70, and would like to avoid in-person therapy because if we’re paying attention, Covid has not gone away. New clients/referrals are telling me that it’s difficult to find in-person therapy, and they are fine with Zoom. No-shows are down, and I have found that therapeutic alliances are not compromised in any way. It’s a win-win for all.
It’s working. Compliance is high in my practice. I am 69, fully vaccinated and my office colleague sees families and children. I wish to keep my exposure to COVID as limited as possible. I would like to work in my profession for a long time still. This is just as much about my self-care as well as my clients. My clients are older for the most part and enjoy the telephone sessions. They share my concerns about being in environments where young children go. I’m busier than ever and my clients are doing well, eager to continue their work in therapy. They show up, they’re willing to do “homework”. Without travel time to and from the office, I have extra time for finding new and interesting tools for each client, as my focus is to be sure that therapy is not boring and to keep the challenges effective. I’m creative with them. I’ve honed my listening skills; sure without eye-to-eye, I need cues and I feel I am more direct with important inquiries for safety, self-injurious behaviors, etc. Telephone therapy puts me on my toes, I’m better for it. I need to be. In the comfort of my home, I am more available to my clients. Do I miss the office environment? Not so much, since I feel this is a success in every situation. I continually poll my clients; I am hearing hesitancy if the office was their only choice. Why ruin a great outcome from a pandemic?
This is not about the pandemic. It’s about the shift of delivery systems from in person to telehealth services. Its meeting the client on a plain that is meant for a busy world. Telehealth in my experience has less no shows; less lateness, more flexibility for the clients time. I also can see more clients per week with less travel time. I think that telehealth should be paid on the same rate as in office. In addition, state lines need to be eliminated. If a client can drive from NJ to my office in PA then I should be able to see them without the client shleping so far.
A salient point is client access to internet services. I have many clients now in phone therapy who have not had access to therapy EVER until now, because they live in rural areas.
Are we to turn our backs on them?
Becky, Thank you for your comment. This is exactly what needs to be communicated to your legislators. Posting in this forum won’t get the job done. Everyone needs to write to their elected officials to express their needs, give an example of a client (protecting PHI), and making a clear request that they support legislation that allows for telephone therapy reimbursement.
This article focuses only on phone therapy. Many clinicians are using zoom and are completely able to see and hear their clients. The real question is is that as efficacious?
This smackes of ageism, among other isms. Most of my telephone session clients are well into their sixties or older. They struggle with understanding (or simply do not have) the technology for video sessions. Many do not have computers.
Now due to COVID-19, many of my geriatric clients are uncomfortable coming into the office as there are breakthrough infections in the vulnerable populations.
These individuals have become isolated and scared. Anyone who says that telephone sessions are subpar has not spent 57 minutes on a call with an individual struggling with agoraphobia, panic attacks, grief, or isolation. From a clinician’s point of view telephone sessions are actually harder. I have to pay so much more attention to every word, every inflection and every background noise to ascertain what is really going on and how to be the most helpful.
I am more exhausted after a telephone session than I am after an in-person session. And I have seen real progress. For that matter ask any crisis line worker How hard it is to work telephonically. Yet we don’t see insurance companies wanting to cut crisis call centers or reduce payments.
I find it sad the only thing insurance companies and government seem to care about is money and not the health and well-being of our most vulnerable populations and our over-taxed clinicians.
Teletherapy works just as well as in person. I have been offering this since the pandemic began.
I /we were not sure about effectiveness in the beginning and now we see the benefits.
Clients are grateful they have time to see a therapist because of the flexibility there is zero compromise of effective therapeutic benefits. There’s less distractions, less cancellations means better outcome.
As far as lower reimbursement for teletherapy… that’s ridiculous… it’s very effective.. equally, if not more in many circumstances.
Simply put, after 30 years of using technology in conjunction with face to face for therapy, I have not seen any difference in how clients progress and become symptom free. In some ways telehealth is more difficult than face to face to administer, and vice versa. I’ve been a recipient and a provider in both formats, and still value the connection and efficacy that either provide.
post pandemic? I’ve allowed fully vaccinated individuals to return. and i just got a call from a fully vaccinated client who couldn’t come to face to face alignment. why? she has figured from her grandchildren. unvaccinated. I’ve been teletherapy since March 2020. do NOT reduce parity payment for teletherapy. this pandemic is not over!! i have to get tested now. face to face. not safe yet.
also… the point of therapy isto get or of therapy. over 1/2 my clients successfully completed their treatment goals. seniors and young parents with children at the, many professionals working from home did therapy during lunchbreaks. insurance companies want to keep more money than they pay out. Medicare and Medicaid, health care for health care purpose pay. for health and well being. i work harder now from home office, don’t reduce pay. it was the saving grace for most people during pandemic. my number 1 problem addressed was anxiety.
thank you
I currently have a caseload of clients that I do telephone sessions with and they graduate and get better just as well as in- person sessions. 75% are grateful for the phone sessions as they do not need to drive in traffic to get to an office. Convenience is a plus, but others are grateful as they may be medically ill, seniors or agoraphobic and would not otherwise have access to psychotherapy. We should let the patients decide what form of contact they prefer in their therapy. If a client wants in-person only, they will make that very clear when seeking out a therapist. Access to a Psychotherapist is most important.
Of course it’s all about the money, isn’t it?! Did anyone think to ask the opinion of the patient? Who can better judge the efficacy of treatment better than the healthcare consumer? As insurance companies fight to keep more of the healthcare dollars they are given by corporations and individuals, one need only ask why they should profit in at such a rate to afford golden parachutes for their CEOs in the millions of dollars? My patients know how telephonic intervention has in some cases saved their lives during COVID-19, they’re NOT wanting to give up what has worked so well for them. The system is upside down. Healthcare profits should go back in the pockets of the paying entities, which is ultimately the consumer. After all, healthcare coverage is a benefit provided to individuals by their companies in lieu of income. Self pay healthcare consumers are a growing segment of the population; money saved in the system should be returned to them also, in the form of lower costs. A case can be made that the providers of healthcare should also be considered when it comes to sharing the profit. We are the ones who spend thousands of dollars to be educated and credentialed to provide quality services to the consumer. Insurance companies profiting for handling the money as an intermediary is no longer acceptable. There’s no room for middlemen in healthcare any longer.