A number of states have already passed laws mandating payment parity for telehealth. Yet telehealth is also thriving in states that have not mandated payment parity. Mandating that insurers pay the same for telehealth as in-person care erases telemedicine’s cost-effectiveness: Compared to an average $146 office visit, a patient can connect with a physician virtually for $79. More telehealth can make healthcare cheaper, but price-controls will artificially keep prices high. This is the opposite of what we should be doing. Such cost savings already provide economic incentives for insurers to offer telemedicine as part of their coverage plans, making government mandates duplicative and unnecessary.

 

Write to the legislature and urge them to oppose bills that mandate payment parity for telehealth.

Recipients

• Your Governor
• Your State Senator or Senators
• Your State Representative or Representatives

Contact

*Required fields

* Title:

Mr. Ms. Mrs. Miss Dr.

* First Name:

* Last Name:

* Your Email:

* Address 1:

  Address 2:

* City:

* State / Province:

Choose a State AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY AS FM GU MH MP PR PW VI

* ZIP / Postal Code:

* Phone Number:

  Yes, I would like to receive periodic updates and communications from Alliance for Natural Health USA.

  Remember me. What's this?

Message

* Subject:

Dear [Decision Maker],

* Personalize your message

There is a bill before the legislature, HB 2770, that would mandate payment parity for telehealth services. While it's a good idea to broaden access to telehealth, price controls are not the way to do it. Telehealth offers an opportunity for lowering healthcare costs, since telehealth visits are inherently less expensive than in-person visits. Telehealth is also more convenient for many people. Evidence demonstrates that telehealth is beneficial for patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and depression. But mandating payment parity for telehealth is not the way to expand access to this type of medicine. We don't need payment parity for telehealth to be expanded. Telehealth is thriving in states that have not mandated payment parity. Mandating that insurers pay the same for telehealth as in-person care erases telemedicine's cost-effectiveness: Compared to an average $146 office visit, a patient can connect with a physician virtually for $79. More telehealth can make healthcare cheaper, but price-controls will artificially keep prices high. This is the opposite of what we should be doing. Cost savings already provide economic incentives for insurers to offer telemedicine as part of their coverage plans, making government mandates duplicative and unnecessary. Telemedicine is clearly part of the answer for COVID. Don't let cronyism ruin our state's response as it has the federal response. At the federal level, we have even seen the government gagging doctors and telling them what they can and cannot say to their patients about COVID, particularly with regard to natural treatments that have strong evidence to back them up. We must let doctors decide what they tell their patients and also what they charge their patients. Price controls like payment parity are often crony deals set up by special interests. They discourage competition and keep healthcare costs high. Please oppose HB 2770 and any other legislation that proposes payment parity for telehealth.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Your Email]