Johnson Helps Lead Bipartisan Effort Calling on FCC to Strengthen Support for Telehealth Providers During Pandemic & Beyond
41 Lawmakers to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: “The Costs of Standing Up Telehealth Programs and the Insufficient Access to Broadband Internet in Many Parts of the Country are Hindering Providers and Patients from Realizing the Full Potential of These Expanded Flexibilities”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representatives Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-07) and Dusty Johnson (R-SD-AL) today led a 41-Member, bipartisan effort calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide greater certainty and support to healthcare providers standing up telehealth services, which are playing an increasingly important role in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a letter sent to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the bipartisan group of lawmakers described how high costs and insufficient broadband internet connectivity prevent many rural patients and providers from fully accessing the benefits of telehealth. The lawmakers called for more information to be made available to Congress regarding the COVID-19 telehealth program authorized by theCoronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, as they expressed concerns that many eligible providers did not receiving an award from the initial funding package.
“We write to request more information about the funding made available to providers through the COVID-19 telehealth program authorized by the CARES Act. More and more patients are seeking care from providers over telecommunications technology rather than in a brick and mortar office or clinic,” states the letter. “We believe this shift has the potential to improve access to care for marginalized populations, reduce costs, and improve health outcomes by facilitating better monitoring of chronic health conditions.”
“In Central Virginia, we’ve seen firsthand how seniors, veterans, and families have been able to access both routine appointments and lifesaving care through telemedicine. Especially during this public health crisis, we need to keep our most vulnerable neighbors safe, and thankfully, many of our region’s healthcare providers use telehealth to deliver quality care without putting Virginians at greater risk,” said Spanberger. “Unfortunately, unreliable internet access and rising costs often prevent patients from accessing these telehealth services. That’s why I led 40 of my colleagues — Republicans and Democrats — in emphasizing the critical importance of telehealth. I’ve been encouraged by the strong support these innovative, cutting edge healthcare programs have received in Congress so far, and I hope Congress and the FCC will take bold steps that can widen the adoption of these programs and expand high-quality, affordable healthcare access across our rural communities.”
“Because of the CARES Act, hospitals around the country were able to apply for funding through the Federal Communications Commission to increase state access to telehealth services. This program permitted South Dakota hospitals to purchase telehealth equipment, ensuring our hospitals could meet the needs of patients virtually,” said Johnson. “If this program is working across the country like it is in South Dakota, we should reopen the application process to meet demand. I’m looking forward to hearing from the FCC on the viability of such an important effort to expand health care access to Americans.”
“We are grateful for a recent award by the FCC COVID-19 Telehealth program that is supporting telehealth equipment in order to expand our telehealth outreach to care for patients during the COVID-19 public health emergency,” said Dr. Karen S. Rheuban, Director, University of Virginia Center for Telehealth. “We support the program’s continuation, should additional funds be made available, and we appreciate Rep. Spanberger’s interest in this important program.”
“The rising importance of telehealth services is particularly important in our rural areas,” said Rick Shinn, Director of Government Affairs, Virginia Community Healthcare Association. “We applaud Rep. Spanberger and her colleagues on moving forward to bring telehealth services into the mainstream of healthcare.”
Click here to read the letter, and the full letter text is also below.
—
Dear Commissioner Pai,
We write to request more information about the funding made available to providers through the COVID-19 telehealth program authorized by the CARES Act.
Telehealth is playing an increasingly important role in the delivery of health care services across the country. More and more patients are seeking care from providers over telecommunications technology rather than in a brick and mortar office or clinic. We believe this shift has the potential to improve access to care for marginalized populations, reduce costs, and improve health outcomes by facilitating better monitoring of chronic health conditions.
Telehealth is especially relevant during the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Using telehealth platforms, patients can see providers with minimal risk of spreading or contracting coronavirus. We are pleased that Congress has acted through successive bills to expand flexibilities for federal health care programs to pay for telehealth services during this emergency.
We recognize that the costs of standing up telehealth programs and the insufficient access to broadband internet in many parts of the country are hindering providers and patients from realizing the full potential of these expanded flexibilities, especially during this pandemic. Partially to address these concerns, Congress included a $200 million appropriation in the CARES Act for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to support health care providers’ provision of telehealth services needed to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.
FCC moved quickly to begin distributing the CARES Act funds. On April 2, 2020, FCC announced the program and set the maximum award at $1 million. The program has proven to be very popular, and on June 25th, FCC announced it would no longer accept applications from providers for funding from the program. Finally, on July 8th, FCC announced the release of the final tranche of approved funding applications from the original $200 million appropriation.
Providers in our districts are very interested in participating in the program. However, we are concerned that many eligible providers and worthy telehealth projects did not receive funding from the initial appropriation.
As such, we respectfully ask for additional data around the following questions:
- How much more in funding would the agency require to fulfill all pending applications?
- What was the average funding amount requested by applicants?
- What technical assistance has the FCC provided to smaller providers that lack experience in applying for eligibility determinations from the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) or in dealing with the agency generally?
- Please provide information about the number of awards and the amount of funding that went to:
- Providers in rural and urban areas;
- Each category of provider type as described by Section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
- Providers who primarily serve high-risk and vulnerable patients; and
- Any additional information that will facilitate Congressional understanding of the program’s impact.
- What is the average number of patients served by each award?
- What is the average time FCC takes to process reimbursements for invoiced services and devices by providers?
Thank you very much for your attention to these matters.
###
So, what you’re saying is that 5G will x-ray everyone in real time to detect the cancer it’s causing?
Da da, CHING.
Terrible jokes aside, first we get “faster broadband”, then we get “for roadside EMS”, then “farm productivity”, then we get “remote tele-health”. All this wrangling and pivoting is sinking the 5G issue into the ground like a fence post.
In reality, all of these services are not best offered by 5G. Fiber optic cable, while more latent than 5G, is faster. EMS needs only a small bit of text (GPS coordinates), which can be packaged and sent in a pre-2G text message. Farm productivity could be well served with WiFi, 2G, or even no remote wireless (safest for operators). Remote tele-health should still be managed at a local point of patient care helping with the session and coordinating more procedures. Tele health, even in remote areas, can be served over telephone and cable and an expanding underutilized fiber optic network. In exceptionally remote areas, farmers take the risks and have trucks that can travel when sophisticated procedures are required. Are we at the point now where the medical community will admit that 5G is “telemeterizable”? It can look through walls, flesh .. bone. Are medical centers about to go 5G capable, where the same waves detecting disease can also digitize and transmit it through space to a Doctor in China that wants to kill you? Amazing!
With respect to 5G – will ranchers and farmers in SD really want an all seeing eye of Mordor installed on the front gate so a doctor from India can get a more regular look at auntie’s bunions using a tele-health system built by H1B labor from China, who infiltrated and attacked the US through Confucius Institutes, EB5, other?
The 5G push through Rounds, Johnson, and Thune to me smacks of a reverberation of a now defunct anti-US, global strategy to take-over, dehumanize, and occupy the US.
Like .. at this stage in the game, 5G was going to be used to rattle everyone’s DNA and give them Covid, and living people testing positive would be carried away and incinerated (true story, China is pretty hard right now) .. or something equally nefarious.
I would like to reiterate that Wuhan’s 5G network went live on October 31 2019, right around the time the “flu like symptoms” started happening and they started rounding people up, taking them away, and burning them like Hitler.
Why are the advisors of Thune, Rounds, and Johnson pushing 5G?
Troubling ..
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pompeo-warns-governors-of-china-infiltration