Relentless Health Value

What You Need to Know About ER Bills Post the No Surprises Act, With Al Lewis. The No Surprises Act Didn't Make the ER Financially Safe—Here's What Still Gets Patients. Episode 386.

Stacey Richter talks with Al Lewis, founder of Quizzify, about what's still financially risky about emergency room visits even after the No Surprises Act, and how the Quizzify Consent Form helps patients protect themselves from excessive charges.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why the No Surprises Act was terrible news specifically for surprise-billing-dependent ER staffing firms like Team Health and Envision

✅ How the Quizzify Consent Form gives patients specific language to write on ER financial forms to protect themselves

✅ Why every hospital or physician bill is effectively a surprise bill if the patient doesn't know the charge ahead of time

✅ How payers' historically weak negotiating leverage with hospitals still exposes patients with cost-sharing to large ER bills

✅ What limits the Quizzify card places on ER bills, both in-network and out-of-network

✅ Why employers can play a direct role in protecting employees from ER financial toxicity

WHY THIS MATTERS

The No Surprises Act closed one loophole, but it didn't fix the underlying problem of patients not knowing what care will cost until the bill arrives. Lewis's practical, low-cost tool gives employers and patients something they can act on today rather than waiting for the next round of legislation.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

No past-episode citations in this episode's timestamped chapter list.

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ Bluesky ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

06:34 What is the evolving problem around surprise bills?

07:08 What are the two issues with the No Surprises Act?

09:13 Why are ER bills in network still so high?

17:27 How does the Quizzify Consent Form work for patients with insurance who unexpectedly visit the hospital?

20:50 "They're basically saying, 'We don't abide by federal law.' Good luck with that."

22:20 "The better question is, why aren't other vendors copying it?"

23:56 How would Quizzify affect the hospital bottom line if employers start utilizing it as part of their employee healthcare?

27:35 Is there any potential downside to Quizzify?

Morgan Health and the 5 Things Self-insured Employers Should Do Right Now, With Dan Mendelson. Five Concrete Moves Self-Insured Employers Can Make to Improve Community Health. Episode 385.

Stacey Richter talks with Dan Mendelson, CEO of Morgan Health at JPMorgan Chase, about the five things self-insured employers—who cover 150 million American lives—can do right now to improve accountable, value-based care in their communities.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why self-insured employers are uniquely positioned to spur accountable care adoption at the local level

✅ The five concrete actions Mendelson recommends: expanding accountable care models, investing in outcomes data, aligning benefits with population health, prioritizing accessible care models, and building real care navigation

✅ Why physician practices need a critical mass of value-based patients before they can afford to transform away from fee-for-service

✅ How Morgan Health is trying to make its own care-model investments scalable for other employers to copy

✅ Why quantitative outcomes data is essential to knowing whether employer health investments are actually working

✅ What the DEI dimension of "meeting employees wherever they are" looks like in practice

WHY THIS MATTERS

Self-insured employers often default to doing what they did last year, leaving their communities stuck in the same suboptimal fee-for-service arrangements. Mendelson's five-point list gives employers and benefits leaders a concrete, sequenced starting point instead of a vague call to do better.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

Encore! EP206 with Ashok Subramanian: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

EP358 with Wayne Jenkins, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

Encore! EP308 with Mark Fendrick, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

EP334 with Sunita Desai, PhD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ Bluesky ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

05:53 Why did Dan direct his article about health benefits at CEOs?

06:56 What does an accountable care model mean to a self-insured employer?

08:50 "This alignment of value will never work … if the 150 million Americans … getting their health insurance through their employer are not also aligned in the same way."

12:21 "We're offering them a higher level of service."

12:32 "Everything that we do is intended to be scalable and not just for us."

13:01 "We have an obligation to do better for our employees."

15:44 "Employers need to understand, the only way to get outstanding care is locally."

19:10 Why is getting quantitative metric data important?

21:50 "This is a much broader vision of accountable care than … primary care."

23:41 "Until everything is aligned, the employer is just not going to be providing an optimal product."

24:32 "There are substantial issues with … health equity, and employers are paying for the care of 150 million Americans in this country."

26:15 Is digital health access important for creating meaningful relationships between patients and providers?

30:43 What is the myth that employers need to tackle?

31:10 Why is care navigation important for employees?

How Shareholders Impact Payer Behavior, Exactly and Specifically, With Wendell Potter. A Former Insurance Insider Explains How Wall Street Pressure Shapes What Payers Actually Do. Episode 384.

Stacey Richter talks with Wendell Potter, a former health insurance communications executive turned whistleblower and founder of the Center for Health & Democracy, about how shareholder demands shape payer behavior and contribute to healthcare's affordability crisis.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why Milton Friedman's shareholders-first framework runs into trouble in a market lacking open, free competition

✅ How a lack of real competition among consolidated payers undermines the free-market case for their behavior

✅ Why one out of four adults in employer plans were functionally uninsured due to high out-of-pocket costs

✅ What options employees at payer organizations have if they want to push for less financially toxic practices

✅ Why premiums keep rising even as payers tout pilot programs and press releases

✅ How payer dysfunction disproportionately harms lower-income communities

WHY THIS MATTERS

Understanding that payer behavior is shaped by shareholder demands—not just bad actors making bad choices—reframes how employers and policymakers should think about reform. Potter's insider view explains why press-release goodwill and premium increases keep coexisting, and what kind of pressure could actually shift incentives.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

EP366 with Kevin Schulman, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ Bluesky ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

07:01 What is the medical loss metric?

10:04 "The reality is, insurers have been jacking up premiums … for a long time."

11:19 "It's a short-term game."

14:10 "You're seeing that these companies are not doing a very good job … of controlling costs because they don't have the incentive."

16:37 Why are payers hammering the individual PCPs?

17:40 Why does a Wall Street publicly traded payer care what their medical cost is as long as their premiums are higher?

20:07 EP366 with Kevin Schulman, MD.

22:32 How do payers ensure that they're controlling utilization?

25:40 "It's death by a thousand cuts."

31:42 "Just like independent practice physicians are endangered, so are community pharmacists."

33:11 Who runs our healthcare system?

Direct Contracting as a Health System Business Strategy, With Nick Stefanizzi. Why Health Systems Are Direct Contracting With Employers—and What Could Go Wrong. Episode 383.

Stacey Richter talks with Nick Stefanizzi, CEO of Northwell Direct, about how health systems can offer employers roughly 20% savings by direct contracting—and the utilization, network-adequacy, and quality risks that come with cutting out the payer middleman.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why cutting out carrier administrative burden and profit margins can save employers real money

✅ The three big risks employers should weigh before direct contracting with a health system

✅ Why narrower or more selective provider networks raise both legal and employee-satisfaction concerns

✅ How data alignment between plan sponsor and provider can genuinely improve population health—if incentives stay aligned

✅ What Northwell Direct's on-site and virtual clinic offerings and direct-contract network actually look like in practice

✅ Why consolidation alone, without genuine payer-provider alignment, hasn't historically improved care quality

WHY THIS MATTERS

Direct contracting promises real savings, but the same profit incentives that make fee-for-service problematic can just as easily creep into a direct-contracted relationship if utilization management disappears along with the payer. Employers evaluating direct contracts need to understand both the upside and the specific structural risks Stefanizzi and other guests have flagged.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

EP127 with Kris Smith, MD, MPP: links unavailable (episode not indexed on Apple, Spotify, or pod.link)

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ Bluesky ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

07:22 What do Northwell Health's main services look like?

08:05 How does Northwell Health save their clients 20%?

12:53 "Look, it is a selective network."

13:22 What are the factors that allow Northwell Health to provide this 20% discount?

13:36 How does getting rid of the payer help the patient and provider relationship and reduce costs?

17:00 Why Northwell Health is selective, not narrow, in their network.

18:28 How does Northwell Health operationalize their direct network?

19:39 "Communication and change management and engagement."

22:17 "Providers also want to be a part of this. They also have ideas."

23:04 Where does the TPA fit into this model?

25:54 What are Northwell Health's must-haves for their TPA partners?

30:27 What's different about Northwell Health's approach?

Why Private Equity Is Willing to Pay $55,000 per Patient to Primary Care Start-ups, With Brian Klepper, PhD (Encore! EP335)

In this Encore, Stacey Richter revisits her conversation with Brian Klepper, PhD, healthcare analyst and principal of Worksite Health Advisors, about the three iterations of primary care today — and why private equity is pouring money into the third: industrialized, risk-bearing advanced primary care.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why the 1990s HMO version of primary care crashed and burned as a glorified gatekeeper model

✅ The three kinds of PCPs today: original fee-for-service, direct primary care, and industrialized/advanced primary care

✅ Why advanced primary care requires an unimpeachable patient relationship, strong virtual capabilities, and data to steer specialty referrals

✅ How a state employee health plan is on track to save $1.3 billion through advanced primary care and specialty pharmaceutical optimization

✅ Why huge investment into primary care start-ups is, in Brian's view, actually a problem worth watching closely

WHY THIS MATTERS

Private equity isn't paying $55,000 per patient for primary care out of altruism — it's betting that industrialized, risk-bearing advanced primary care can deliver outcomes original fee-for-service PCPs structurally can't, while capturing the financial upside of managing the full continuum of care. Understanding which of the three primary care models an organization is actually building is essential to evaluating whether that investment serves patients or just investors.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

EP295 with Rebecca Etz, PhD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ Bluesky ✭ X

00:00 Introduction

05:59 Is the HMO model of primary care a good model?

08:36 "Industrialized medicine is exciting."

09:44 What does primary care have the opportunity to do?

10:06 "The problem that goes along with that is that now immense amounts of money are being infused into primary care organizations."

11:00 Where does direct primary care and advanced primary care fit into this model?

14:19 "At the end of the day, what primary care really needs to be about is…the management of life issues as well."

14:48 EP295 with Rebecca Etz, PhD.

15:03 "Better relationships quantifiably translate to better care."

22:21 "Almost nobody in healthcare wants any of this to happen."

24:30 Why the huge amounts of money being invested into primary care is actually a big problem.

28:43 "We should be able to get wildly better health outcomes for about 40% to 45% of the money that we're currently spending."

Pharma Conflicts of Interest and the Anti-Kickback Statute, With Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH. Even a Free Lunch Can Skew a Doctor's Prescribing—What the Anti-Kickback Statute Does and Doesn't Catch. Episode 382.

Stacey Richter talks with Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist and health services researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, about conflicts of interest in pharma payments to physicians and where the current anti-kickback statute falls short.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why data shows that even modest payments—including free lunches—measurably skew physician prescribing

✅ The difference between clearly impermissible conflicts of interest and the harder-to-judge gray areas of pharma-physician payments

✅ How to weigh the aggregate good of legitimate clinical-expert collaboration against the aggregate harm of overprescribing

✅ Why patient populations can end up overmedicated or overdiagnosed as a result of industry payments to physicians

✅ What role payers could play in identifying and correcting skewed prescribing patterns

✅ What solutions—from stricter bans to physician self-regulation—could curb harmful conflicts of interest without stifling legitimate innovation

WHY THIS MATTERS

The debate over pharma payments to physicians usually gets flattened into corruption versus necessary collaboration. Mitchell's research shows the truth is more nuanced—and understanding where real harm happens, and where it doesn't, is essential for any stakeholder trying to design smarter guardrails than a blanket ban or an anything-goes status quo.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

No past-episode citations in this episode's timestamped chapter list.

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ Bluesky ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

07:32 How does the recent whistleblower case serve as a good example of what shouldn't be permissible in Pharma?

11:23 "There's a little bit of a disconnect between what the law currently says and maybe the ideal world that we would want."

14:37 How should stakeholders react to this new legislation?

17:56 What is the aggregate benefit versus risk of these payments to doctors?

23:51 What should providers and the federal government be doing in light of this new legislation?

29:07 "It's just always so much harder to get to the outcomes because there's so much more that happens in between the clinical decision and then what the patient's outcome is down the road."

30:42 Will innovation be stifled with this new crackdown on kickbacks?

For Reals, Becoming Customer-centric, Transforming, or Innovating at a Very Large Organization, With Karen Root. Being Customer-Centric Isn't What's Written on the Walls—It's What Happens in the Halls. Episode 381.

Stacey Richter talks with Karen Root, director of experience strategy at Boehringer Ingelheim, about what it actually takes to move a large organization—pharma or otherwise—from brand-centric to genuinely patient- or customer-centric.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why so many pharma companies claim to be patient-centric while remaining brand-centric in practice

✅ What a compelling transformation vision needs to include to inspire real, sustained change

✅ Why systems thinking matters before rolling out any new capability or organizational transformation

✅ How to find the right entry point—a quick win that resonates emotionally with customers or patients

✅ What the "J curve" is and why underestimating the trough of disillusionment kills transformation efforts

✅ Why measuring both quantitatively and qualitatively is essential to sustaining any change effort

WHY THIS MATTERS

Nice mission statements don't change patient outcomes—actual operational transformation does. Root's playbook for navigating the trough of disillusionment that follows any organizational change applies well beyond pharma, to any health system, payer, or vendor trying to become genuinely patient-centric instead of just saying so.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

No past-episode citations in this episode's timestamped chapter list.

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ Bluesky ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

08:45 What skills does leading a large company in customer centricity require?

10:30 What needs to be included in a vision for customer-centric change?

10:55 "In transformation, we have to adjust the approach to that vision. We have to break it down into a couple of key steps."

11:34 What is the J curve?

12:21 "Disruption is going to happen; it's just how do we minimize its impact."

13:55 Why is hope so important for success in change?

17:17 "Leverage your people; understand where they are in the change curve."

26:19 "We can't manage what we don't measure."

26:29 "We have to not only measure in quantitative ways but qualitative."

27:31 What's the downside to not being able to innovate?

28:50 Why does leadership need to have a story to tell?

31:14 "We have to remember that these are human beings and to look for those tells."

7 Big Reasons Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Actually Happened This Time Around, With Mark Miller, PhD. Medicare Can Now Negotiate Drug Prices—Here's the Political Constellation That Made It Happen. Episode 380.

Stacey Richter talks with Mark Miller, PhD, EVP of healthcare at Arnold Ventures and former longtime executive director of MedPAC, about the seven converging factors that finally got Medicare drug price negotiation signed into law after a decade of failed attempts.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why growing public sensitivity to healthcare costs in general made Pharma an easy-to-spot target

✅ How non-industry-sponsored research began undercutting Pharma's R&D cost claims

✅ Why the distinction between breakthrough innovation and me-too drugs started mattering to policymakers

✅ How the tension between future innovation and today's access worked against Pharma's messaging

✅ Why Pharma's talking points stayed the same even as the political landscape shifted underneath them

✅ What else got packaged into the law, including the $2,000 Part D out-of-pocket cap and inflation rebates

WHY THIS MATTERS

For a decade, pundits predicted a healthcare-cost reckoning that never quite arrived. Miller's seven-factor breakdown explains why 2022 was different—and understanding the political mechanics behind drug price negotiation matters for anyone trying to predict what other structural changes in healthcare could actually become law next.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

No past-episode citations in this episode's timestamped chapter list.

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ Bluesky ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

04:45 Why did Medicare's ability to negotiate on drug pricing happen now?

06:35 What's different about the drug market today that allowed Medicare to gain the ability to negotiate drug pricing?

12:08 How has innovation played into drug price negotiations?

12:40 "If you limit profits, you can end up limiting innovation."

14:03 Why was the distinction between more drugs and innovative drugs important to changing the landscape of the drug market?

15:49 More versus new and future versus now in the drug market.

19:59 "As the landscape was shifting, Pharma didn't shift with it."

23:00 How did voters change the landscape in drug pricing?

24:39 "Pharma did not have exclusive control over the patients' voice."

29:59 "The industry would largely like to just stick with the patents that they have."

30:16 "Of course, it's competition that ultimately drives innovation."

31:30 "This is an exquisitely complicated market."

What the CAA Now Requires Brokers to Disclose About Their Fees, With AJ Loiacono. Why 2022 Is a "Magical Moment" for Plan Sponsors to Demand Broker Fee Disclosure. Episode 379.

Stacey Richter talks with AJ Loiacono, CEO of Capital Rx, about how the Consolidated Appropriations Act now requires employee benefit consultants and brokers to disclose all the money they make off a plan sponsor—direct and indirect—and what happens when they don't comply.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why the CAA, in effect since December 2021, requires brokers, EBCs, TPAs, and PBMs to disclose all compensation they receive from a plan sponsor, not just direct fees

✅ Real examples of hidden per-script compensation arrangements, including quarterly payments routed to a PO box in another state

✅ Why plan sponsors, as ERISA fiduciaries, are legally responsible for determining whether these disclosed fees are reasonable and free from conflict

✅ The concrete steps a plan sponsor should take: request disclosure in writing, in actual dollars rather than percentages, then report noncompliance to the Department of Labor

✅ Why public reporting of one broker's noncompliance creates real legal exposure for every other plan sponsor still using that same broker

✅ Why Loiacono calls 2022 a "magical moment" for plan sponsors and above-board EBCs alike, given how directly the CAA now enables this kind of scrutiny

WHY THIS MATTERS

Hidden compensation arrangements between brokers, TPAs, and PBMs directly inflate what plan sponsors and employees pay, and the CAA gives plan sponsors real legal leverage to demand transparency they couldn't previously compel. Loiacono's breakdown turns a dense regulatory requirement into a concrete action plan any self-insured employer can follow starting now.

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ Bluesky ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

06:03 Who can get in trouble for mismanaging employee funds?

06:31 Who can begin the cycle for annual review?

07:53 "When you talk about conflicts of interest, they're everywhere."

13:17 "You're paying for access."

13:38 Why is it important to request that they disclose direct and indirect compensation?

14:08 What are the layers to these hidden fees and compensations?

18:17 What is a reasonable fee for a good plan admin?

19:32 "I think people need to step back and say, 'How many different ways are they getting compensated?'"

24:57 "The compensation is not just unreasonable, but if they were to move it, they would lose access to an entire column of revenue."

25:13 "For every good broker consultant, there's a horrible individual lurking out there and it's easy to figure out: Ask for them to disclose their fees."

28:14 "You can't win if you can't even pay the house fee to come in."

31:42 Why do you need to ask for disclosure, and what do you need to ask specifically?

32:27 What are some of the characteristics of a good plan consultant?

Where Telehealth Reimbursement Policy Stands Right Now, With Josh LaRosa, MPP. Payment Parity, State Licensure, and the FFS Debate Hiding Inside Telehealth Policy. Episode 378.

Stacey Richter talks with Josh LaRosa, MPP, vice president at Wynne Health Group, about the near-term future of CMS telehealth reimbursement and licensure flexibilities—and why the telehealth coverage debate is really a proxy for the larger fee-for-service versus value-based payment argument.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN

✅ Why Medicare currently has payment parity between in-office and telehealth visits, and what determines how much longer that lasts

✅ What pandemic-era telehealth "flexibilities"—including across-state-line licensure—are still in effect and which are at risk of expiring

✅ Why telehealth utilization concerns in a fee-for-service model don't apply the same way inside capitated or risk-based arrangements

✅ How the telehealth reimbursement debate is really a subset of the bigger FFS-versus-value-based-payment debate, not a standalone policy question

✅ Why patient safety concerns around telehealth fraud change shape once a practice isn't automatically paid more for doing more visits

✅ How individual states are shaping their own telehealth policy, using Arizona as a specific example

WHY THIS MATTERS

Telehealth coverage decisions often get discussed as if they're self-contained, but LaRosa's framing shows they're inseparable from the broader question of whether the underlying payment model is fee-for-service or value-based—and that context changes what "overuse" or "fraud" risk even means. Understanding where CMS reimbursement policy stands right now helps provider organizations and plan sponsors plan around genuine near-term uncertainty instead of outdated pandemic-era assumptions.

=== LINKS ===

🔗 Show Notes with all mentioned links: Episode Page

✉️ Enjoy this podcast? Subscribe to the free weekly newsletter

🫙 Support the podcast with a small donation to the Tip Jar

📺 Subscribe to our YouTube channel

🎤 Listen on Apple Podcasts

🎤 Listen on Spotify

=== CONNECT WITH THE RHV TEAM ===

✭ LinkedIn ✭ Threads ✭ Bluesky ✭ X

00:00 Introduction.

04:09 What is the story with telehealth policy right now?

06:08 What kind of flexibilities did HHS allow with telehealth after the pandemic?

09:46 Are we still under these pandemic flexibilities for telehealth?

12:15 Why isn't the government just making greater access to telehealth permanent?

18:24 How does telehealth lend itself to the risk of overspending when dealing with an FFS model?

21:13 Does telehealth fit into the new CMS fee schedule?

22:55 How do states factor into the future of telehealth?

24:40 What is Arizona doing specifically to improve and ensure the future of telehealth?

30:56 What's next in store for telehealth at the congressional level?