The GAO performs a study on telehealth.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) provides Congress, the heads of executive agencies, and the public with timely, fact-based, nonpartisan information that can be used to improve government and save taxpayers billions of dollars.
For example, the GAO recently determined that from March 2020 to February 2021, a total of 32.5 million services were delivered via telehealth – versus 2.1 million services the prior year. But Medicaid hasn’t collected or assessed data on the quality of care that beneficiaries received via telehealth services.
Per the GAO, Medicaid officials from all six selected states – including Arizona, California, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee – said expanding telehealth supported beneficiaries’ access to care, but also identified some limitations. Officials reported making or considering post-pandemic telehealth modifications.
What was interesting from this GAO study was that they reported that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) “does not collect, assess, or report information about any effect delivering services via telehealth has on the ‘quality of care’ Medicaid beneficiaries receive, and has no plans to do so.” Why is that? From someone who is a proponent of telehealth, as long as it shows that it’s more than a convenient way to deliver healthcare, but also a medically necessary and efficient way to take care of patients (and not just another waste of government spending), its use should be encouraged. This should have been a top priority for CMS.
The GAO further stated that collecting this data is important, given concerns GAO has raised about the quality of care provided via telehealth. It would also be consistent with how CMS has encouraged states to use data on quality of care to identify disparities in healthcare and target opportunities for improvement to advance health equity.
Why did the GAO perform this study?
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act includes a provision for the GAO to report on the federal response to the pandemic. In addition, the GAO was asked to examine the use of Medicaid flexibilities in response to COVID-19. This report describes selected states’ telehealth use before and during the pandemic, as well as their experiences with and plans for telehealth. It also evaluates, among other things, CMS’s telehealth oversight of quality of services.
You have to ask the question: “How can you expand telehealth in the Medicaid program if you don’t have all of the data to show it is safe, effective, and accessible – and the quality of care is comparable to an in-person patient visit?” You can’t.
So, the GAO is making two recommendations to CMS: to collect and analyze information about the effect delivering services via telehealth has on the quality of care Medicaid beneficiaries receive, and to determine any next steps based on the results of the analysis.
Does CMS have to follow their recommendations?
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
| Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services | The Administrator of CMS should collect and analyze the information needed to assess the effect delivering services via telehealth has on the quality of care Medicaid beneficiaries receive. (Recommendation 1) | Open When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. |
| Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services | The Administrator of CMS should determine, based on the results of its initial assessment, whether further assessments of the effect delivering services via telehealth has on the quality of care Medicaid beneficiaries receive are warranted, for the purposes of developing guidance to assist states in making telehealth coverage and payment decisions. (Recommendation 2) | Open When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. |
Only time will tell.
References:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104700
https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does
I have recently seen providers receiving notices of alleged overpayments for relatively small amounts, say $10,000 or $20,000. These figures might strike a provider as
The Trump administration has recently announced what it’s calling a “digital health ecosystem” that will allow for millions of Americans to upload personal health data
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
This third session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review of FY26 changes to the MS-DRG methodology and new technology add-on payments (NTAPs), presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.
This second session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review the FY26 changes to ICD-10-PCS codes. This information will be presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
RACmonitor is proud to welcome back Dr. Ronald Hirsch, one of his most requested webcasts. In this highly anticipated session, Dr. Hirsch will break down the complex Two Midnight Rule Medicare regulations, translating them into clear, actionable guidance. He’ll walk you through the basics of the rule, offer expert interpretation, and apply the rule to real-world clinical scenarios—so you leave with greater clarity, confidence, and the tools to ensure compliance.
Bring your questions and join the conversation during this open forum series, live every Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST from June 11–July 30. Hosted by Chuck Buck, these fast-paced 30-minute sessions connect you directly with top healthcare experts tackling today’s most urgent compliance and policy issues.
Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more
Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
