Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Medical Community Tells Congress That Telehealth Needs Permanent Federal Support

The Medical Community Tells Congress That Telehealth Needs Permanent Federal Support
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing

WASHINGTON–In March 2020, Stephanie Hendrick, a retired teacher in Roanoke, Virginia, contracted COVID-19, a virus that over 110 million people in the U.S. would contract over the next couple of years.

She recovered from the initial illness, but like many, she soon began experiencing long COVID symptoms. In the early months of the pandemic, hospitals and medical centers prioritized care for individuals with active COVID-19 infections, and pandemic restrictions limited travel and in-person treatment for other medical conditions. Hendrick’s options for care for long COVID were limited.


“No one knew what was going on,” Hendrick said. “No one knew what to do.”

But then, she found a north star: telehealth services. Hendrick contacted MedStar Health, a nearby healthcare provider, and she began meeting online with a physician. Through the computer screen, Hendrick was able to get a prescription for pulmonary cardiac rehab treatment and saw a speech pathologist to help deal with her symptoms.

“For me, if it hadn't been for that, I wouldn't have gotten care. I would have just floundered,” she said.

Hendrick’s experience with medical care since the start of the pandemic mimics the experiences of millions of other Americans. Due to the pandemic, many more medical professionals began to see patients online. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 85% of physicians used telehealth services to treat patients in 2021, compared to 15% two years prior.

In August 2020, amid the pandemic, President Donald Trump signed an executive order expanding telehealth accessibility, including loosening restrictions for the 68 million Americans on Medicare. In 2022, President Joe Biden extended those provisions, and Congress has funded them in yearly budgets.

But, many of the expansions of telehealth access expire in less than four months. Without permanent legislation authorizing telehealth, the medical community has been unable to make the necessary investments in IT and other infrastructure to serve patients at or near their homes. In March, Trump and Congress extended telehealth access rules and funding until Sept. 30, but advocates and medical professionals continue to push for permanently enshrining the provisions into federal law.

“This should be a no-brainer for them,” Hendrick said. “There shouldn't be any questions about it.”

Telehealth usage by Medicare recipients has decreased since 2020, but remained about double what it was before the pandemic, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Members of Congress have introduced more than a dozen bills to expand telehealth services. Some have passed, such as the expansion of telemental health coverage, which was made permanent in 2021. But most have not progressed through Congress.

In March, Senator Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, introduced the sweeping bipartisan CONNECT for Health Act, which would make many of the temporary provisions permanent. The bill would remove geographic requirements for telehealth services provided under Medicare and broaden the scope of medical professionals who may provide services.

However, the same bill was previously filed in 2019, 2021, and 2023, and Congress failed to act.

Experts said that by relying on one temporary provision or extension after another, Congress has hurt the medical industry and patients.

“In so many ways, this is an example of the muscle memory Congress has, of how it operates. It's a clear juxtaposition to state policy,” said Kyle Zebley, senior vice president of public policy at the American Telehealth Association.

Many state governments have implemented new telehealth rules to increase options for customers over the last five years. States like Florida and Oregon allow out-of-state telehealth providers to deliver services. As of last year, every state, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico offer telehealth services for those covered by Medicaid.

The Trump administration has been a vocal supporter of telehealth. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz both support expanding quality healthcare access, a Health and Human Services spokesperson said to the Medill News Service.

“They believe that leveraging technology is essential to modernizing our healthcare system and ensuring that all Americans, especially those in rural areas, receive the care they need,” the spokesperson said.

Lawmakers from both parties have also backed legislative changes to enshrine the telehealth provisions. Republican lawmakers, who disproportionately represent rural areas, support telehealth. Rural regions support telehealth investments due to a lack of medical specialists and important medical equipment. Democrats support telehealth services because they offer convenience for people who may not be able to leave work or family for a regular doctor's checkup.

Dr. Ethan Booker, MedStar Health’s chief medical officer for telehealth, said the medical community cannot make the needed investments in telehealth until Congress passes a law to support telehealth. MedStar was an early adopter of a telehealth model in 2016. Booker noted that the massive growth of telehealth demand during the pandemic sparked public and private investment.

“There was a lot of excitement around a sort of continued ramp (up) in volume of telehealth, and I think there was a fair amount of speculative investment,” Booker said.

As the pandemic died down, so did the exponential investment in the industry. Congress’s failure to make increased telehealth permanent created “a challenge for the health system.”

“I know we can deliver outstanding care,” Booker said. “I think permanence and more certainty around the regulatory environment will allow us to do much more effective cost-effectiveness research.”

Neither Zebley nor Booker anticipated that the telehealth provisions would disappear on Sept. 30. They expected the law to pass or for Congress to approve further extensions.

Senator Mark Warner, D-Va., one of the five senators who sponsored the CONNECT for Health Act, said the bill should pass “without delay and make affordable, high-quality care more accessible, no matter where they live.”

However, despite the September deadline for the provisions, the bill has seen no movement after being referred to the Senate Finance Committee in April.

Booker said that passing laws to support telehealth will help towards the goal of integrating telehealth services with standard medical care for patients across the country.

“People often ask what will success look like in telehealth, in digital health, in these new care models. And my answer usually is when we stop talking about it that way and we're just talking about healthcare,” Booker said.

This reality is also reflected in the lives of patients. Hendrick has friends and family in Roanoke who live in both suburban and rural regions. Hendrick's family is deeply connected to the medical community. Her father was a doctor, her mother and sister nurses, her brother is a medic, and her daughter is a physician assistant. She says telehealth is part of all of their careers.

For Hendrick’s circle, filled with medical personnel, telehealth is the norm.

“It shouldn't be that if you can't get to a doctor's office for whatever reason, you don't get medical care,” Hendrick said. “There should be a way for all of us to be able to look at a physician or a nurse face-to-face [on a screen] and be able to say, ‘Here's what's going on,’ and them to be able to say, ‘I can help you.’”

Ismael M. Belkoura is a graduate journalism student with the Medill News Service at Northwestern University. He specializes in health, business, and legal reporting.

To read more of Ismael's work, click HERE.

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

Please help the Fulcrum's NextGen initiatives by donating HERE!

Read More

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th

Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.

The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.

Keep ReadingShow less