The GAO performs a study on telehealth.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) provides Congress, the heads of executive agencies, and the public with timely, fact-based, nonpartisan information that can be used to improve government and save taxpayers billions of dollars.
For example, the GAO recently determined that from March 2020 to February 2021, a total of 32.5 million services were delivered via telehealth – versus 2.1 million services the prior year. But Medicaid hasn’t collected or assessed data on the quality of care that beneficiaries received via telehealth services.
Per the GAO, Medicaid officials from all six selected states – including Arizona, California, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee – said expanding telehealth supported beneficiaries’ access to care, but also identified some limitations. Officials reported making or considering post-pandemic telehealth modifications.
What was interesting from this GAO study was that they reported that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) “does not collect, assess, or report information about any effect delivering services via telehealth has on the ‘quality of care’ Medicaid beneficiaries receive, and has no plans to do so.” Why is that? From someone who is a proponent of telehealth, as long as it shows that it’s more than a convenient way to deliver healthcare, but also a medically necessary and efficient way to take care of patients (and not just another waste of government spending), its use should be encouraged. This should have been a top priority for CMS.
The GAO further stated that collecting this data is important, given concerns GAO has raised about the quality of care provided via telehealth. It would also be consistent with how CMS has encouraged states to use data on quality of care to identify disparities in healthcare and target opportunities for improvement to advance health equity.
Why did the GAO perform this study?
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act includes a provision for the GAO to report on the federal response to the pandemic. In addition, the GAO was asked to examine the use of Medicaid flexibilities in response to COVID-19. This report describes selected states’ telehealth use before and during the pandemic, as well as their experiences with and plans for telehealth. It also evaluates, among other things, CMS’s telehealth oversight of quality of services.
You have to ask the question: “How can you expand telehealth in the Medicaid program if you don’t have all of the data to show it is safe, effective, and accessible – and the quality of care is comparable to an in-person patient visit?” You can’t.
So, the GAO is making two recommendations to CMS: to collect and analyze information about the effect delivering services via telehealth has on the quality of care Medicaid beneficiaries receive, and to determine any next steps based on the results of the analysis.
Does CMS have to follow their recommendations?
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
| Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services | The Administrator of CMS should collect and analyze the information needed to assess the effect delivering services via telehealth has on the quality of care Medicaid beneficiaries receive. (Recommendation 1) | Open When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. |
| Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services | The Administrator of CMS should determine, based on the results of its initial assessment, whether further assessments of the effect delivering services via telehealth has on the quality of care Medicaid beneficiaries receive are warranted, for the purposes of developing guidance to assist states in making telehealth coverage and payment decisions. (Recommendation 2) | Open When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. |
Only time will tell.
References:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104700
https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does
In my travels to hospitals across the country and time spent in emergency rooms shadowing the critical work of social workers, I’ve seen firsthand the
H.R. 1 doesn’t directly rewrite ICD-10 or CPT, but it does change the environment in which you’re coding. The impact is mostly indirect – through
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
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.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
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.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
Prepare for the 2025 CMS IPPS Final Rule with ICD10monitor’s IPPSPalooza! Click HERE to learn more
Get 15% OFF on all educational webcasts at ICD10monitor with code JULYFOURTH24 until July 4, 2024—start learning today!
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
