Telehealth parity (SB83) draws praise for access and questions about cost and implementation
Loading...
Summary
SB83 would require private insurers to reimburse telehealth at the same rate as comparable in-person services; supporters said parity stabilizes access for rural and specialty patients, while municipal and insurance representatives raised concerns about fiscal impact, definitions of 'comparable' services, and possible economic leakage to out-of-state providers.
Senate Bill 83, presented to the House Labor and Commerce Committee by staff to Senator Matt Clayman, would require health insurers to reimburse telehealth services at the same rate as comparable in-person services and repeal sunset language that had previously applied to Medicaid parity. The bill contains conforming changes across multiple code sections and sets an effective date of Jan. 1, 2027.
Supporters, such as Emily Neen of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said telehealth proved vital during the COVID-19 era and that formalizing parity helps patients in rural Alaska and those with mobility limitations. “This experiment has worked,” Neen said, describing telehealth as an established tool that reduces travel burdens for specialty care.
Municipal and employer groups urged caution. Nils Andreasen of the Alaska Municipal League said strict payment parity could raise municipal and employer premiums, risk economic leakage (providers living out of state billing Alaska rates), and remove bargaining flexibility from plan sponsors. He urged consideration of a ‘‘fair and equitable’’ approach rather than rigid parity until cost implications are better understood.
Division of Insurance Director Heather Carpenter described current insurer practices: some major carriers are already paying parity (Moda and Aetna), while Premera follows Medicare guidance. Carpenter noted payment systems typically base reimbursement on the patient’s location and flagged potential drafting issues about whether insurance-title mandates inadvertently bind other entities such as retirement plans; she recommended further review with insurers, Medicaid and DRB to sort implementation details.
Committee members sought more data on utilization, cost impacts and whether parity is additive (increasing overall utilization) or substitutive (replacing in-person visits). Medicaid operations staff said their division has not seen significant complaint trends in five years of parity under Medicaid and would follow up with utilization and reimbursement data. The committee set SB83 aside pending further information from Medicaid, insurers and other stakeholders.
What’s next: Committee requested fiscal and utilization information from Medicaid, insurer filings and further analysis of possible language to reduce unintended incentives (for example, to locate providers out-of-state).
