FCC Telehealth Pilot Should Be Available in Wide Area, Say Commenters

Broaden the definition of healthcare providers, allow funding for remote monitoring and medical body area network devices (MBAN), and make the program available in a wide geographic area. Those are among recommendations for the FCC pilot USF pilot to support connected care for the poor and veterans. Comments posted through Friday docket 18-213 for the three-year, $100 million program (see 1907100073).

Verizon suggested a lower discount than the 85 percent factor in the NPRM. It said the commission should disburse support directly to healthcare providers, calling “unduly burdensome” the proposal for “service providers to develop a new billing process for a temporary program.” The American Hospital Association said healthcare providers should have the option of handling disbursements.

Support “network equipment such as fixed wireless network connectivity devices,” allowing households to obtain fixed wireless broadband service, said Microsoft. The Partnership for Artificial Intelligence, Telemedicine & Robotics in Healthcare also backed that. PATH, Viraspex and CTIA supported MBAN devices.

Use the term telehealth, and its definition, not telemedicine, for providers “because it encompasses a broader array of services ... critical to improving behavioral health and chronic conditions,” said the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO). The NPRM defines telemedicine as delivered “usually by doctors,” said the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. The group said the broader definition would ensure “that qualified health care providers will not be excluded from participating in the pilot or unnecessarily limited in the services.” ASTHO also recommended reporting requirements “mindful of establishing baseline data” and a system that gives all users access to collected results.

The American Hospital Association, saying the commission’s definition of rural isn’t “sufficiently inclusive,” urged it to look at alternative definitions. It cited those from other federal agencies, such as the Health Resources and Service Administration.

Sage Telecom said the pilot shouldn’t allot funding solely to eligible healthcare providers. Patients may need subsidized broadband access to connect with the provider, it said. It recommended prioritizing “hospitals with fewer than 100 beds” and consider a requirement corporate participants contribute “perhaps 20 percent of the gross cost of their approved project to be matched with Pilot program funds."

Establish a per patient cap for each project for broadband connectivity to “ensure that funding amounts are sufficient to cover the costs of connectivity," said America’s Communications Association. UnitedHealth opposed such a cap. “Costs for internet access may vary," the insurer said. It requested maximum flexibility.

Don’t restrict the pilot “to specified geographic regions (urban or rural),” health professional shortage areas or non-metropolitan statistical areas, said the American Academy of Family Physicians. Give higher priority if the fiber broadband network is proposing to serve 80-90 percent of tribal lands, said Seneca Nation. Don’t require letters from governors or other state officials, it said. “Often this puts Native American communities at a disadvantage.”