The chosen article explains telehealth parity laws and the ongoing reforms necessary to ensure that telehealth becomes a part of the U.S. health system. What is interesting is that the article discusses how the United States is ranked low in regards to efficiency, access to care, equity, and healthy lives (Health Affairs, 2016). Health Affairs (2016) goes on to explain that telehealth is necessary due to shortages of healthcare professionals in certain areas.
Telehealth is a way to provide healthcare services without physical contact. There are three main types of services offered. These services include store-and-forward (asynchronous communication), real-time video (synchronous conversation), and remote patient monitoring (Health Affairs, 2016).
Telehealth would improve access to to care, decrease healthcare costs, improve health quality, but there are risks and challenges that go along with implementing this system. The article depicts three main concerns, which include inability to perform a whole consultation which affects the relationship between the patient and the provider, problems with obtaining entire medical and health information, and organizational complications (Health Affairs, 2016). The United States also struggles with implementation of telehealth due to varying state laws and coverage, universal parity laws, licensure variations, and patient privacy and reimbursement (Health Affairs, 2016). These concerns inhibit the implementation of telehealth nationwide.
Telehealth is important and would be beneficial, but we have yet to implement this service nationwide. Reimbursement, from both public and private funding, holds us back. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) encourages implementation of telehealth services, but the ACA only implemented telehealth at the federal level where medicare, grants, incentives could cover some cost. Medicaid is determined by the state and private payers can also request telehealth reimbursements at the state level. The article discusses incentives and reimbursement strategies at the federal, state levels, and discusses how medicaid and private insurers affect telehealth services. There are many differences regarding parity laws, which create huge differences regarding telehealth coverage. Due to the differences in laws and regulations at the state and federal level it is hard to institute telehealth.
Although, there are many individuals that believe telehealth would be positive there are many opponents to telehealth. The concerns voiced by opponents of telehealth include the fact that new technology could be unreliable and harmful, the quality of care may create inequity, the care may only constitute one time encounters, patient privacy maybe affected, and finally telehealth should not be reimbursed equally as an in-person visit (Health Affairs, 2016).
The article closes with information regarding Congress implementing a nationwide telehealth parity act. The Medicare Telehealth Parity Act would use Medicare for telehealth services and reimbursement, and would include beneficiaries (Health Affairs, 2016). Without parity laws, telehealth services will be unable to develop to their full extent because there are no incentives to use. Hopefully, over time states implement parity laws that encourage the use of telehealth in order to lower cost and provide better care that will directly affect the health of our communities. Telehealth is patient focused and regardless of what the opponents say there is still reason to believe that telehealth would help improve health care, decrease cost and give our communities the desired care they are seeking.

Health Affairs. (2016). Health Policy Brief: Telehealth Parity Laws. Ongoing reforms are expanding the landscape of telehealth in the US healthcare system, but challenges remain. DOI: 10.1377/hpb20160815.244795