Telehealth Expansion

Basic healthcare needs were not spared the changes to come out of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the country struggled to adapt, state and federal government rules were expanded to promote the use of telehealth services. Telehealth services allow patients to receive healthcare advice without face-to-face meetings with a healthcare provider. Video conferencing instead facilitates the meeting between doctor and patient. Although flexibility has been stressed as critical during the pandemic, state licensing requirements could jeopardize the ongoing popularity of telehealth services. As states reopen for in-person encounters, Congress and states have expressed an interest in continuing to implement rules that would encourage the expansion of telehealth services even post-pandemic.

We asked two professors and authors of ALM’s Tax Facts with opposing political viewpoints to share their opinions about whether the continued expansion of telehealth services even as America reopens is wise.

Below is a summary of the debate that ensued between the two professors.

Their Votes:

Byrnes

Bloink

Their Reasons:

Byrnes: Telehealth and other remote health options are an efficient and effective way to get health services to Americans who otherwise might have difficulty getting the advice they need. Not all Americans have the resources they need to visit a doctor in person—even with the failed Obamacare coverage that’s available to unemployed taxpayers through the insurance marketplaces. Telehealth fills the gaps to keep America safe.

Bloink: Telehealth might be a cost-effective solution in the short-term—and I do agree that it’s served its purpose well in the midst of a global pandemic. In the long-term, we really can’t predict whether this type of remote health care is effective enough to keep America healthy. “Filling the gaps” is one thing, providing a replacement for traditional medical care is another.

____

Byrnes: We finally have the technology in place to make cost-effective telehealth work for nearly every American. Very few Americans lack access to at least a basic smartphone with video capabilities. There’s no reason why Americans shouldn’t benefit from the cost savings that telehealth offers—and I’m in favor of encouraging remote care as a solution at every turn, including via reimbursement from tax-friendly savings accounts like HRAs.

Bloink: Some Americans might be drawn to telehealth because it’s convenient and cheap. But are doctors able to offer the same level of care? If telehealth makes America sicker in the long run and even discourages Americans from visiting their doctors in person, it isn’t a cheaper alternative to traditional healthcare. Nor is it viable in the long term.

____

Byrnes: Democrats are always trying to tell hardworking Americans what quality healthcare should look like. Americans should really have the right to choose what they prefer. If they want to use their tax-preferred funds for telehealth and skip the doctor’s office, they should have that right. After all, it’s their money and why should the government have the right to dictate healthcare preferences?

Bloink: Remote services might have played a critical role in getting Americans access to healthcare advice during the pandemic. Now, our focus should be on finding solutions to allow people to return safely to the doctor’s office for their care. Virtual advice is no substitution for an in-person consultation with a doctor—a doctor who would likely be inclined to address only discrete issues via telehealth, and might miss bigger picture health issues that preventative care is designed to address. The government has every right to weigh in—because healthcare is something we’ll all need at some point and the financial burden cannot be imposed solely on those who take their health seriously.