The spike in telehealth usage during the COVID pandemic has generated a plethora of questions about the ramifications of geography. Let’s cover a few.
First, as I mentioned in a prior article, Medicare applies a geographic adjuster. That means that if you’re supposed to bill using the locality of where the physician is sitting, it’s possible to do geographic arbitrage: plunking your physician in the highest-reimbursed area.
I’m not recommending that. In fact, it’s part of my argument that the location of the physician shouldn’t matter. And I want to remind folks that there’s no statute or regulation explicitly requiring billing where the physician sits. To be clear, there is also no statute or regulation specifically supporting my position. But first, when there is no specific law, it is hard to argue that any course of action is illegal. Moreover, billing where the patient is makes the most sense.
But billing is far from the only factor we need to consider regarding any telehealth service. I think that most people are attuned to the various licensure issues that can arise. There’s absolutely no doubt that in most situations, the physician should be licensed both in the location where he or she is usually practicing and in the state where the patient is usually located. The word “usually” there is important. When either the patient or the physician is on vacation for a few days in a particular state, the risk that anyone insists licensure is required is low. In addition, if the telehealth visits are ancillary to an in-person visit, whereby the patient travels to the clinic, there is a reasonable argument that the physician needn’t be licensed in the state where the patient is. But I should mention that there is always a small risk that a state would take the position that a license is required. I believe it was Kansas that tried to insist that physicians treating patients in a plane flying over the state should be licensed there. I can’t swear that the state was Kansas, and the incident happened in the early 1990s. That horror story doesn’t change the fact that from a practical perspective, the risk associated with a visit of a couple of days is low.
But licensure isn’t the only worry. There’s a more overlooked and probably more significant concern: medical malpractice. Some medical malpractice insurers will attempt to deny coverage for some telehealth visits. Frankly, the slap on the wrist you’re likely to get from a board complaint will feel like a sweet caress compared to the consequences if the insurer attempts to dodge coverage of a malpractice claim. Understanding reimbursement and licensure are important, but understanding medical malpractice is vital.
I will acknowledge that some of my advice isn’t intellectually consistent. While I generally recommend billing where the patient is and not where the physician is, if the physician is outside the United States, I’m a bit more worried about Medicare’s position that services outside the U.S. aren’t covered. Since I’m asserting that the service occurs wherever the patient is, the physician’s presence in Paris shouldn’t matter. I worry about it nevertheless. But if your compliance team is reaching out to your physicians when they are somewhere domestic and singing the beautiful Moody Blues song “I Know You’re Out There Somewhere,” I think you can change the tune to Frankie Goes to Hollywood and tell them to “Relax.”
Going back to the blues, I will admit that the times I’ve been mistaken are impossible to say, but I don’t think this is one of them.
Programming note: Listen every Monday for Healthcare attorney David Glaser’s “Risky Business” segment on Monitor Mondays with Chuck Buck, 10 Eastern.
While the coverage of telehealth is definitely a good thing, it has caused needless confusion. I would like to address a little of that today.
For nearly a decade after the late-2000s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) policy changes, work Relative Value Units (RVUs) felt like a stable
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Sepsis sequencing continues to challenge even experienced coding and CDI professionals, with evolving guidelines, documentation gaps, and payer scrutiny driving denials and data inconsistencies. In this webcast, Payal Sinha, MBA, RHIA, CCDS, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS-O, CRC, CRCR, provides clear guideline-based strategies to accurately code sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, assign POA indicators, clarify the relationship between infection and organ dysfunction, and align documentation across teams. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen audit defensibility, improve first-pass accuracy, support appeal success, reduce denials, and ensure accurate quality reporting, empowering organizations to achieve consistent, compliant sepsis coding outcomes.
Expert presenters Kathy Pride, RHIT, CPC, CCS-P, CPMA, and Brandi Russell, RHIA, CCS, COC, CPMA, break down complex fracture care coding rules, walk through correct modifier application (-25, -57, 54, 55), and clarify sequencing for initial and subsequent encounters. Attendees will gain the practical knowledge needed to submit clean claims, ensure compliance, and stay one step ahead of payer audits in 2026.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
In this timely session, Stacey Shillito, CDIP, CPMA, CCS, CCS-P, CPEDC, COPC, breaks down the complexities of Medical Decision Making (MDM) documentation so providers can confidently capture the true complexity of their care. Attendees will learn practical, efficient strategies to ensure documentation aligns with current E/M guidelines, supports accurate coding, and reduces audit risk, all without adding to charting time.
Join Ronald Hirsch, MD, FACP, CHCQM for The PEPPER Returns – Risk and Opportunity at Your Fingertips, a practical webcast that demystifies the PEPPER and shows you how to turn complex claims data into actionable insights. Dr. Hirsch will explain how to interpret key measures, identify compliance risks, uncover missed revenue opportunities, and understand new updates in the PEPPER, all to help your organization stay ahead of audits and use this powerful data proactively.
Stay ahead of the 2026-2027 audit surge with “Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue,” a high-impact webcast led by Michael Calahan, PA, MBA. This concise session gives hospitals and physicians clear insight into the most likely federal audit targets, such as E/M services, split/shared and critical care, observation and admissions, device credits, and Two-Midnight Rule changes, and shows how to tighten documentation, coding, and internal processes to reduce denials, recoupments, and penalties. Attendees walk away with practical best practices to protect revenue, strengthen compliance, and better prepare their teams for inevitable audits.
As AI reshapes healthcare compliance, the risk of biased outputs and opaque decision-making grows. This webcast, led by Frank Cohen, delivers a practical Four-Pillar Governance Framework—Transparency, Accountability, Fairness, and Explainability—to help you govern AI-driven claim auditing with confidence. Learn how to identify and mitigate bias, implement robust human oversight, and document defensible AI review processes that regulators and auditors will accept. Discover concrete remedies, from rotation protocols to uncertainty scoring, and actionable steps to evaluate vendors before contracts are signed. In a regulatory landscape that moves faster than ever, gain the tools to stay compliant, defend your processes, and reduce liability while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 1 with code CYBER25
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
