Telehealth Regulations in Teladoc Inc. v. Texas Medical Board Case
Introduction
Telehealth is a relatively new topic of debate concerning regulations and restrictions. Moreover, since the current legislation may not address each potential barrier linked to the healthcare segment, every court decision exemplifies a precedent that affects the industry. In this paper, telehealth will be examined from the perspective of the Teladoc, Inc. v. Texas Medical Board case, highlighting the overall change in the medical field and the limitations and opportunities correlating with online health services.
Policy Background
Access to public health is not granted to every US citizen, so multiple individuals lack opportunities to acquire the needed treatments and medications. Researchers highlight that more than 40% of Americans are not adequately insured, implying they cannot access needed services (The Commonwealth Fund, 2022). This is especially true for minorities and low-income demographics because employers do not offer minimum-wage insurance. The nature of the problem correlates with the US healthcare system as a whole.
The lack of universal healthcare is a key factor preventing individuals from accessing much-needed help. The situation has worsened during COVID-19, and the demand for health services has increased while the potential to provide them has remained the same. As a result, the health outcomes have worsened, the frequency of health conditions has increased, and their severity has become more prominent. Thus, the worsening of the health of the general population leads to adverse economic and budgetary implications.
Telehealth, on the other hand, has been employed by almost 40% of adults in 2021 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2022). As a result, the opportunities to achieve economic and health benefits through the affordable measure of online service are extensive. The issue of lack of accessibility in healthcare requires urgent addressing. Yet, ameliorating the situation would benefit the general population through an increase in health outcomes and the government through lower spending.
Facts of the Case
The case correlating with the debate on the opportunities that can be granted to telemedicine companies is Teladoc, Inc. v. Texas Medical Board. Teladoc, a company providing telemedicine services, has claimed that the Texas Medical Board has broken the antitrust law by implementing a regulation that limits doctors from prescribing medicine and diagnosing patients without an in-person meeting (Walters, 2015). Antitrust laws highlight regulations that aim to preserve free trade and minimize instances in which competition is abolished through monopolization (Federal Trade Commission, 2022). From the board’s perspective, the regulation is intended to minimize potential medical errors and safety barriers, as patients consulted over the phone may not receive adequate care.
On the other hand, Teladoc highlights that telemedicine decreases prices for those who cannot afford insurance and is indeed safe, and dismissing the segment while prioritizing in-person doctor visits goes against fair competition. The lower court has determined that the Texas Medical Board has violated antitrust regulations, yet the decision on the Court of Appeals is yet to be exemplified. The case is presented as it illustrates that the segment is yet to be regulated and requires further legislative considerations.
Reasoning and Opinions
The lawsuit between the two parties is ongoing. Nonetheless, certain decisions taken by the lower courts illustrate the potential actions that will be implemented after the Court of Appeals decides in favor of the board of the company. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas has established that the Texas Medical Board has employed measures that prevent people from receiving healthcare. Instead, the entity has prioritized in-person visits, which is linked to the minimization of competition and monopolization of the Texas healthcare system (Walters, 2015). Currently, the case is being reviewed in the Court of Appeals, yet no policy or law has been created because the decision has not been constructed.
Analysis
Indeed, the decision on whether the antitrust law has been dismissed or not is yet to be made. Nonetheless, the significance of the case is already evident as telemedicine is a relatively new field with few examples of court cases that can establish a precedent. The lower court has already decided in favor of Teladoc and has highlighted that regulations regarding the limitations of online services are not helpful for people requiring assistance. Thus, if the Court of Appeals has a similar verdict, the impact on the government and public health will be significant.
On the one hand, the spending on healthcare will decrease with the maximization of telemedicine. On the other hand, the general health of the population will either increase due to the availability of the services or decrease if online doctor meetings replace all in-person ones. This, however, will be exemplified after the decision is made since no evidence of risks to health has been linked to advances in remote health services. Nonetheless, the potential unintended consequence is to be considered when highlighting barriers.
Conclusion
Telehealth, while becoming more widely applied in regard to links between doctors and their patients, is a nuanced field that is yet to be fully regulated. The court case between Teladoc, Inc. and the Texas Medical Board illustrated the situation in which the decision to create stricter rules for online healthcare service providers has been received negatively. The medical field is moving toward the direction of more affordable and efficient options, which is why remote consultations are maximized. While it is yet to be decided whether telemedicine should be restricted, the importance of the topic is highlighted by the potential impact of the case.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Telemedicine use among adults: United States, 2021. CDC. Web.
Federal Trade Commission (2022). The antitrust laws. Web.
The Commonwealth Fund. (2022). The state of the U.S. Health Insurance in 2022. Web.
Walters, E. (2015). Teladoc scores early victory in clash with Medical Board. The Texas Tribune. Web.