RESUMEN
Background: COVID saw a significant increase in the use of virtual care, supporting its utility and its benefits. It also revealed that unfortunately there are limitations and gaps we still need to address, including inequitable access to digitally enabled health care tools. Methods: On November 8, 2022, the Mass General Brigham held the Third Annual Virtual Care Symposium: Demystifying Clinical Appropriateness in Virtual Care and What's Ahead for Pay Parity. One panel addressed digital health equity and key points are summarized here. Results: Four experts discussed the key domains of digital equity and inclusion in the session titled "Achieving Digital Health Equity: Is it a One-Size-Fits-All Approach or Personalized Patient Experience?" These included lessons from strategies and tactics being used by hospitals and health systems to address digital equity issues; and opportunities to achieve digital health equity for specific populations (e.g., Medicaid). Conclusions: Understanding the drivers of digital health disparities can help organizations and health care systems develop and test strategies to reduce them and improve access to quality health care through digitally enabled technologies and delivery channels.
RESUMEN
Telehealth continues to experience substantial investment, innovation, and unprecedented growth. However, telehealth has been slow to transform healthcare. Recent developments in telehealth technologies suggest great potential for chronic care management, mental health services, and care delivery in the home-all of which should be particularly impactful for an aging population with physical and cognitive limitations. While this alignment of technological capacity and market demand is promising, legal barriers remain for telehealth operators to scale up across large geographic areas. To better understand how federal and state law can be reformed to enable greater telehealth utilization, we review and extract lessons from (1) establishment of a healthcare relationship, (2) state licensure laws, and (3) reimbursement. We analyze these areas because of the legal ambiguities or inconsistencies they raise depending on the state, which seem to be hampering telehealth growth without necessarily improving quality of care. We propose several solutions for a more unified approach to telehealth regulation that incorporate core bioethics principles of doctor-patient relationship, competence, patient autonomy, as well as population-wide questions of resource allocation and access. Lawmakers should clarify that healthcare relationships may be established outside of in-person meetings, align licensure laws via an interstate compact or federal preemption, and expand Centers for Medicare and Medicaid plans to reimburse telehealth delivery in the home.