Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Telehealth provides health care to a patient from a provider at a distant location. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic adoption of telehealth modalities was increasing slowly but steadily. During the public health emergency rapid widespread telehealth implementation has been encouraged to promote patient and provider safety and preserve access to health care. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION/METHODS:Evidence was acquired from English language Internet-searches of medical and business literature and following breaking news on the COVID-19 pandemic and responses from health care stakeholders including policy makers, payers, physicians and health care organizations, and patients. We also had extensive discussions with colleagues who are developing telehealth techniques relevant to neuro-ophthalmology. RESULTS:Regulatory, legal, reimbursement and cultural barriers impeded the widespread adoption of telehealth prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. With the increased use of telehealth in response to the public health emergency, we are rapidly accumulating experience and an evidence base identifying opportunities and challenges related to the widespread adoption of tele-neuro-ophthalmology. One of the major challenges is the current inability to adequately perform funduscopy remotely. CONCLUSIONS:Telehealth is an increasingly recognized means of healthcare delivery. Tele-neuro-ophthalmology adoption is necessary for the sake of our patients, the survival of our subspecialty, and the education of our trainees and students. Telehealth does not supplant but supplements and complements in-person neuro-ophthalmologic care. Innovations in digital optical fundus photography, mobile vision testing applications, artificial intelligence and principles of channel management will facilitate further adoption of tele-neuro-ophthalmology and bring the specialty to the leading edge of healthcare delivery.

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing world-wide social dislocation, operational and economic dysfunction, and high rates of morbidity and mortality. Medical practices are responding by developing, disseminating and implementing unprecedented changes in health care delivery. Telemedicine has rapidly moved to the frontline of clinical practice due to the need for prevention and mitigation strategies; these have been encouraged, facilitated, and enabled by changes in government rules and regulations and payer-driven reimbursement policies.We describe our neurology department's situational transformation from in-person outpatient visits to a largely virtual neurology practice in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two key factors enabled our rapid deployment of virtual encounters in neurology and its subspecialties. The first was a well-established robust information technology infrastructure supporting virtual urgent care services at our institution; this connected physicians directly to patients using both the physician's and the patient's own mobile devices. The second is the concept of one patient, one chart, facilitated by a suite of interconnected electronic medical record (EMR) applications on several different device types.We present our experience with conducting general teleneurology encounters using secure synchronous audio and video connections integrated with an EMR. This report also details how we perform virtual neurological examinations that are clinically meaningful, and how we document, code and bill for these virtual services. Many of these processes can be used by other neurology providers, regardless of their specific practice model. We then discuss potential roles for teleneurology after the COVID-19 global pandemic has been contained.

Almost all medical care in the United States is delivered with the provider and patient in immediate proximity; this model is referred to as face-to-face care. Medical services can be apportioned as procedural care (eg, surgery, radiology, or laboratory testing and others) or cognitive care, also known as Evaluation and Management (E/M) services, in which the provider formulates an assessment and plan after obtaining information from the patient's history, examination, and diagnostic tests.Providing a medical opinion and plan using the telephone as the technology that links the provider and the patient is an example of a non-face-to-face E/M service. Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and the details for how to provide telephone services have been available for decades but have not been reimbursed and therefore were rarely used. In recent years, as new technologies have evolved, there has been slow and steady acceptance that non-face-to-face E/M care can be an adjunct to or replacement for some face-to-face E/M services. These technologies and the descriptors for associated CPT and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes were introduced over the past few years and have become known by the generic term telehealth. They have been slowly incorporated into medical practice. Most of these services were introduced in the consumer retail market, in which the cost was borne directly by the patient, or as private contract services, in which the cost was borne by the consulting hospital, such as with telestroke services. In both the consumer retail model and private contract model, the care delivered usually did not involve CPT or HCPCS coding. The adoption of telehealth has been slow, in part because of the initial costs and several regulatory constraints, as well as the reluctance of patients, providers, and the insurance industry to change the concept that medical care could only be delivered when the patient and their provider were in physical proximity.After the COVID-19 pandemic reached the United States, the US Department of Health & Human Services issued a public health emergency and declared a Section 1135 Waiver that lifted many of the administrative constraints. With the need for near-absolute social distancing, this perfect storm has resulted in the immediate adoption of telemedicine, at least for the duration of the pandemic, for cognitive care to be delivered using communication technologies that are already in place. This article discusses the most common forms of non-face-to-face E/M care and the proper coding elements necessary to provide these services.

The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, changed the world within a matter of weeks. The primary action to constrain the spread of the virus is social isolation. Given this public health principle, and the shortage of personal protective equipment during the global pandemic, all health care stakeholders need to reconsider the indications for face-to-face health care encounters in providing patient care. Which encounters are imperative and which ones can be switched to non-face-to-face care? What changes in laws, regulations, payment policies and workflow are needed to enable this transition? (1,2,3).