Joint Commission calls CMS revised telemedicine standards a "positive step"
Accreditation Connection, May 13, 2011
The Joint Commission has released an official statement reacting to revisions by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to its telemedicine credentialing and privileging requirements, set to go into effect July 5, 2011.
These revised requirements align with The Joint Commission’s long-standing stance that heavy credentialing and privileging requirements for telemedicine healthcare providers are an excessive burden to hospitals and actually impede access to specific healthcare services.
The Joint Commission’s standards, which are upheld by these CMS revisions, allow hospitals to rely upon information from the accredited telemedicine entity or distant-site hospital when making credentialing and privileging decisions for telehealth providers, rather than forcing the hospital to conduct its own credentialing and privileging process for each telehealth provider.
“The Joint Commission is very pleased that CMS has revised its telemedicine requirements to provide more flexibility to hospitals and lessen their regulatory burden,” Mark R. Chassin, MD, FACP, MPP, MPH, president of The Joint Commission, said in an official statement following the CMS announcement. “This is an especially positive step for improving access to care for patients in rural areas. Of particular importance is the fact that critical access hospitals will have additional avenues to benefit from the services of particularly skilled physicians and practitioners.”
The Joint Commission’s official press release can be found on the organization's web site.
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- HIPAA Q&A: TPO disclosures to a business associate
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Q&A: Acute respiratory failure diagnosis does not require intubation
- Q/A: Coding infusions to correct low potassium levels
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- The debate continues: Nurses who reported physician to the Texas Medical Board file federal appeal
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- State medical board will hear unprofessional charges against OB-GYN
- E-mailed
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Q&A: Acute respiratory failure diagnosis does not require intubation
- Q/A: Coding infusions to correct low potassium levels
- Know criteria for coverage when podiatrists use Dermagraft® tissue substitute
- Q/A: New code for image-guided minimally invasive lumbar decompression
- Cut through the confusion related to different kinds of wound debridements
- Consider the big picture before querying physicians
- Conference Update: 2012 CDI Professional of the Year nominations, poster session submission period open; additional discount hotel rooms acquired
- Cohesive History and Physical Requirements
- Coding concurrent therapy under the MDS 3.0
- Searched
