Digital health service reimbursement: Breaking down the pros and cons


How, and whether, to reimburse for use of digital health tools is complicated, says attorney Dale Van Demark, who breaks down the pros and cons of moving past traditional models when it comes to new technologies in a post to The National Law Review.

As the push for value-based purchasing grows, as well as efforts like population health management, “digital health tools can be valuable simply for the efficiencies improved quality they can bring to the delivery of healthcare services,” says Van Demark, a partner at law firm McDermott Will & Emery.

However, he also ruminates on the value that direct reimbursement holds, as well as some areas where it may not be needed.


13th Partnering with ACOS & IDNS Summit

This two-day summit taking place on June 10–11, 2019, offers a unique opportunity to have invaluable face-to-face time with key executives from various ACOs and IDNs from the entire nation – totaling over 3.5 million patients served in 2018. Exclusively at this summit, attendees are provided with inside information and data from case studies on how to structure an ACO/IDN pitch, allowing them to gain the tools to position their organization as a “strategic partner” to ACOs and IDNs, rather than a merely a “vendor.”

One example is telemedicine. For this kind of service, he says, reimbursement would make sense because it can mirror the way an in-person visit can be reimbursed.

But a lack of reimbursement standards has proven to be a hurdle for telemedicine, hindering adoption of the services by providers, FierceHealthIT previously reported.

On the other side, when it comes to provider-to-provider communication services or patient engagement efforts, the value of those “may be undercut by direct reimbursement” because it would be difficult to calculate, Van Denmark says.

He adds that the shift to alternative payment models (APMs) is not complete. Thus, APMs, Van Denmark says, “cannot be relied on to be all that exists at some platonic end-point of reimbursement reformation. Rather, fee-for-service is here to stay--at least for the foreseeable future.".

While electronic health record adoption spiked, in large part, because of definite financial incentives, he says, this doesn’t hold true for the current set of digital health tools.

He concludes that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution, and that while direct reimbursement for digital health tools is not necessary in terms of the APMs, “there may be good reasons to push for direct reimbursement, at least for some digital health tools, so that they have a firm setting in the complicated world of healthcare reimbursement.”

To learn more:
- here's Van Denmark's post

Suggested Articles

The FTC is suing Surescripts, accusing the health IT company of employing illegal restraints to maintain its monopolies over the e-prescribing market.

Group plans for small businesses may offer a lower-cost option in comparison to individual market coverage, according to a new report. 

Boston-based Athenahealth is laying off a portion of its workforce to “decrease bureaucracy and consolidate capabilities" as part of a reorganization.