Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37283856›Full record

ReviewTelemedicine reports2023

Payment and Coverage Parity for Virtual Care and In-Person Care: How Do We Get There?

Nandita Khera, Meghan Knoedler, Sarah K Meier, Sarvam TerKonda, Ryan D Williams, Christopher M Wittich, Jordan D Coffey, Bart M Demaerschalk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Telemedicine reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Regulation and Compliance in Telemedicine: Viewpoint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nandita KheraDepartment of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0577-3155
Meghan KnoedlerRevenue Strategy Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Sarah K MeierCommunications Department, Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Sarvam TerKondaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Ryan D WilliamsCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Christopher M WittichDivision of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Jordan D CoffeyCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Bart M DemaerschalkCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7262-817X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A steep increase in the use of delivery of virtual care occurred during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) because of easing up of payment and coverage restrictions. With the end of PHE, there is uncertainty regarding continued coverage and payment parity for the virtual care services. Methods: On November 8, 2022, The Mass General Brigham held the Third Annual Virtual Care Symposium: Demystifying Clinical Appropriateness in Virtual Care and What's Ahead for Pay Parity. Results: In one of the panels, experts from Mayo Clinic led by Dr. Bart Demaerschalk discussed key issues related to "Payment and Coverage Parity for Virtual Care and In-Person Care: How Do We Get There?" The discussions centered around current policies around payment and coverage parity for virtual care, including state licensure laws for virtual care delivery and the current evidence base regarding outcomes, costs, and resource utilization associated with virtual care. The panel discussion ended with highlighting next steps targeting policymakers, payers, and industry groups to help strengthen the case for parity. Conclusions: To ensure the continued viability of virtual care delivery, legislators and insurers must address the coverage and payment parity between telehealth and in-person visits. This will require a renewed focus on research on clinical appropriateness, parity, equity and access, and economics of virtual care.

Indexed as

coverage paritydigital healthreimbursement paritytelehealthtelemedicinevirtual care

Identifiers

PMID37283856
PMCPMC10240289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.