As part of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, or PHE, which officially ended earlier this month, the federal government gave healthcare providers considerable flexibility to continue practicing via telehealth by dropping restrictions on its use.
Congress extended some of these flexibilities until Dec. 31, 2024, providing federal agencies of jurisdiction time to analyze the full impact of telehealth and Congress time to consider whether and how these waivers will be extended. Importantly, it was also done in part to add more evidence to the growing but inadequate pool of virtual care research.
In addition, just last week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official notification stating that with the end of the PHE, healthcare providers will have 90 days to transition back into compliance with the telehealth rules they operated under prior to the pandemic.
However, two days before the PHE expired, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) extended telehealth flexibilities that enable clinicians to virtually prescribe controlled medications to their patients for another six months. That was going to end with the PHE’s termination.
According to comments submitted to the DEA by the American Telemedicine Association, failure to extend these pandemic-era flexibilities, thereby once again requiring patients to be evaluated in-person by a doctor to receive prescriptions for certain controlled substances, would miss the point entirely of the gains made by telehealth during the pandemic – and reinstate barriers to care.
This interplay of positions on the use of telehealth between Congress and multiple federal agencies demonstrates the complicated relationship the feds seem to have with the provision of telehealth services.
Now, let’s go back to that growing yet inadequate pool of virtual care research I mentioned earlier, and briefly investigate a couple of primary claims about expanded telehealth use and what the research shows.
Before the DEA extended its pandemic flexibilities, the agency had actually planned to do the exact opposite of what it wound up doing, and increase restrictions on virtual prescribing of controlled substances under the proposition that more safeguards were needed to prevent online over-prescribing of controlled medication.
However, according to a recent study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, expanded use of telehealth services during the pandemic was shown to reduce the risk of opioid overdoses, while increasing opioid use disorder treatment, access, and adherence.
Policymakers also expressed worry that expanded telehealth during the pandemic was being utilized inappropriately, leading to an increase in emergency department usage. But once again, the research proved otherwise.
According to a study report released last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), researchers examined data from nearly 14,000 family physicians with about 13 million patients and found that patients of doctors who used virtual care for over 20 percent of their patient visits went to the ED less often than those whose doctors held fewer of their appointments virtually.
Accordingly, the researchers concluded that expanded telehealth access can actually outweigh face-to-face interaction when it comes to quality of care, wholly refuting the purported connection between expanded telehealth services and increased ED utilization.
It remains unclear how long temporary telehealth flexibilities will be extended, if or when the DEA will issue a final rule on virtual prescribing of controlled substances, and whether Congress will act to finalize the telehealth flexibilities it extended through the end of next year.
The one thing that does seem clear is that, in order to simplify the complex relationship our governing bodies have with telehealth, they need to spend more time diligently evaluating pertinent research findings and considering comments from patients and providers across the healthcare spectrum to draw appropriate, substantiated conclusions on the proper regulatory path forward.
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.
Following Congress’s recent failure (or success, depending on your political leanings) in not extending expiring tax subsidies for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
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
