David L. Scher, MD

The use of mobile or wireless devices in health care continues to challenge the regulatory landscape. States increasingly are playing a role in either advancing or retracing steps previously taken at the federal level. In the spirit of Ferris Bueller, "isms" have provided a number of opportunities for discussion surrounding mobile health technologies. Federalism remains a key criterion upon which our country creates health care policy – which could serve as a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, it might encourage innovation and provide policy that satisfies the needs of specific constituents. On the other hand, it may create more complexity or even contradict previous policy. The result is often a legal quagmire of wasted time, energy, and money. While policy will never keep pace with technology and innovation, a number of stakeholders are working to bridge the gap.

HIMSS – the Health Information Management System Society – has provided an overview of contemporary issues focused on the state level to advance the use of mobile and wireless devices in health care. Their paper titled "Mobile Health IT in the States: A Policy Perspective"sheds light on a number of potential redundancies in the regulatory system and offers some guidance on other issues.

One major issue gaining plenty of interest among physicians and lawmakers is the ability for mobile devices to facilitate the delivery of health care in a more meaningful, cost effective way. However, whenever disruptive technology begins to upset vested interests, one can expect a robust discussion.

The licensure of physicians and other providers and establishing telehealth standards of care remain substantial obstacles to overcome in the regulatory space. Federal licensure would permit physicians to care for patients across state lines via telehealth delivery systems. Some medical boards of states bordering large metropolitan areas such as Washington, D.C., have entered into reciprocal provider licensing agreements to allow for telehealth encounters.

Reimbursement represents another major obstacle to widespread adoption by providers. Telehealth is primarily a technology approved in certain rural areas under Medicaid. Enter a new age of consumerism in health care, and for a small fee, providers can engage in consultations using your mobile device.

A number of studies have examined the desire for patients to receive care on a mobile device, and not surprisingly, convenience wins out. However, a number of discordant state polices increasingly prohibit the ability to scale many of these innovative and cost-saving approaches to care delivery. The HIMSS paper encourages states to consider health IT, electronic health record (EHR) adoption, telehealth, and mobile health (mHealth) when resourcing and determining coverage for publicly funded health programs such as Medicaid, public health initiatives, and state employee health benefits programs.

Unfortunately, reimbursement for telehealth services for Medicare patients as well is also limited to rural settings defined as "originating sites."

"An originating site is the location of an eligible Medicare beneficiary at the time the service being furnished via a telecommunications system occurs. Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for telehealth services only if they are presented from an originating site located in a rural Health Professional Shortage Area, either located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or in a rural census tract, as determined by the Office of Rural Health Policy within the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) or [from] a county outside of an MSA."

Telehealth reimbursement only covers certain specialties and services. Telehealth has been in existence for decades and has been the focus of many outcomes-based studies.

Extending this to mobile technologies such as medical apps remains a challenge due to the lack of evidence. However, I foresee the critical need for such applications, the rapid development of state-of-the-art sensor technologies, and the emergence of analytics to converge and make the success of mobile health technologies a welcome and accepted reality.

Dr. Scher is an electrophysiologist with the Heart Group of Lancaster (Pa.) General Health. He is also director of DLS Healthcare Consulting, Harrisburg, Pa., and clinical associate professor of medicine at the Pennsylvania State University, Hershey.

The use of mobile or wireless devices in health care continues to challenge the regulatory landscape. States increasingly are playing a role in either advancing or retracing steps previously taken at the federal level. In the spirit of Ferris Bueller, "isms" have provided a number of opportunities for discussion surrounding mobile health technologies. Federalism remains a key criterion upon which our country creates health care policy – which could serve as a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, it might encourage innovation and provide policy that satisfies the needs of specific constituents. On the other hand, it may create more complexity or even contradict previous policy. The result is often a legal quagmire of wasted time, energy, and money. While policy will never keep pace with technology and innovation, a number of stakeholders are working to bridge the gap.

HIMSS – the Health Information Management System Society – has provided an overview of contemporary issues focused on the state level to advance the use of mobile and wireless devices in health care. Their paper titled "Mobile Health IT in the States: A Policy Perspective"sheds light on a number of potential redundancies in the regulatory system and offers some guidance on other issues.

One major issue gaining plenty of interest among physicians and lawmakers is the ability for mobile devices to facilitate the delivery of health care in a more meaningful, cost effective way. However, whenever disruptive technology begins to upset vested interests, one can expect a robust discussion.

The licensure of physicians and other providers and establishing telehealth standards of care remain substantial obstacles to overcome in the regulatory space. Federal licensure would permit physicians to care for patients across state lines via telehealth delivery systems. Some medical boards of states bordering large metropolitan areas such as Washington, D.C., have entered into reciprocal provider licensing agreements to allow for telehealth encounters.

Reimbursement represents another major obstacle to widespread adoption by providers. Telehealth is primarily a technology approved in certain rural areas under Medicaid. Enter a new age of consumerism in health care, and for a small fee, providers can engage in consultations using your mobile device.

A number of studies have examined the desire for patients to receive care on a mobile device, and not surprisingly, convenience wins out. However, a number of discordant state polices increasingly prohibit the ability to scale many of these innovative and cost-saving approaches to care delivery. The HIMSS paper encourages states to consider health IT, electronic health record (EHR) adoption, telehealth, and mobile health (mHealth) when resourcing and determining coverage for publicly funded health programs such as Medicaid, public health initiatives, and state employee health benefits programs.

Unfortunately, reimbursement for telehealth services for Medicare patients as well is also limited to rural settings defined as "originating sites."

"An originating site is the location of an eligible Medicare beneficiary at the time the service being furnished via a telecommunications system occurs. Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for telehealth services only if they are presented from an originating site located in a rural Health Professional Shortage Area, either located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or in a rural census tract, as determined by the Office of Rural Health Policy within the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) or [from] a county outside of an MSA."

Telehealth reimbursement only covers certain specialties and services. Telehealth has been in existence for decades and has been the focus of many outcomes-based studies.

Extending this to mobile technologies such as medical apps remains a challenge due to the lack of evidence. However, I foresee the critical need for such applications, the rapid development of state-of-the-art sensor technologies, and the emergence of analytics to converge and make the success of mobile health technologies a welcome and accepted reality.

Dr. Scher is an electrophysiologist with the Heart Group of Lancaster (Pa.) General Health. He is also director of DLS Healthcare Consulting, Harrisburg, Pa., and clinical associate professor of medicine at the Pennsylvania State University, Hershey.

The use of mobile or wireless devices in health care continues to challenge the regulatory landscape. States increasingly are playing a role in either advancing or retracing steps previously taken at the federal level. In the spirit of Ferris Bueller, "isms" have provided a number of opportunities for discussion surrounding mobile health technologies. Federalism remains a key criterion upon which our country creates health care policy – which could serve as a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, it might encourage innovation and provide policy that satisfies the needs of specific constituents. On the other hand, it may create more complexity or even contradict previous policy. The result is often a legal quagmire of wasted time, energy, and money. While policy will never keep pace with technology and innovation, a number of stakeholders are working to bridge the gap.

HIMSS – the Health Information Management System Society – has provided an overview of contemporary issues focused on the state level to advance the use of mobile and wireless devices in health care. Their paper titled "Mobile Health IT in the States: A Policy Perspective"sheds light on a number of potential redundancies in the regulatory system and offers some guidance on other issues.

One major issue gaining plenty of interest among physicians and lawmakers is the ability for mobile devices to facilitate the delivery of health care in a more meaningful, cost effective way. However, whenever disruptive technology begins to upset vested interests, one can expect a robust discussion.

The licensure of physicians and other providers and establishing telehealth standards of care remain substantial obstacles to overcome in the regulatory space. Federal licensure would permit physicians to care for patients across state lines via telehealth delivery systems. Some medical boards of states bordering large metropolitan areas such as Washington, D.C., have entered into reciprocal provider licensing agreements to allow for telehealth encounters.

Reimbursement represents another major obstacle to widespread adoption by providers. Telehealth is primarily a technology approved in certain rural areas under Medicaid. Enter a new age of consumerism in health care, and for a small fee, providers can engage in consultations using your mobile device.

A number of studies have examined the desire for patients to receive care on a mobile device, and not surprisingly, convenience wins out. However, a number of discordant state polices increasingly prohibit the ability to scale many of these innovative and cost-saving approaches to care delivery. The HIMSS paper encourages states to consider health IT, electronic health record (EHR) adoption, telehealth, and mobile health (mHealth) when resourcing and determining coverage for publicly funded health programs such as Medicaid, public health initiatives, and state employee health benefits programs.

Unfortunately, reimbursement for telehealth services for Medicare patients as well is also limited to rural settings defined as "originating sites."

"An originating site is the location of an eligible Medicare beneficiary at the time the service being furnished via a telecommunications system occurs. Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for telehealth services only if they are presented from an originating site located in a rural Health Professional Shortage Area, either located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or in a rural census tract, as determined by the Office of Rural Health Policy within the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) or [from] a county outside of an MSA."

Telehealth reimbursement only covers certain specialties and services. Telehealth has been in existence for decades and has been the focus of many outcomes-based studies.

Extending this to mobile technologies such as medical apps remains a challenge due to the lack of evidence. However, I foresee the critical need for such applications, the rapid development of state-of-the-art sensor technologies, and the emergence of analytics to converge and make the success of mobile health technologies a welcome and accepted reality.

Dr. Scher is an electrophysiologist with the Heart Group of Lancaster (Pa.) General Health. He is also director of DLS Healthcare Consulting, Harrisburg, Pa., and clinical associate professor of medicine at the Pennsylvania State University, Hershey.