TREAT Act would allow physicians’ telehealth licenses be temporarily reciprocated across all 50 states during the COVID-19 pandemic
Should a doctor only be allowed to practice in their own home state?
Context
Under current law, doctors’ and physicians’ licenses are only valid in the state where they practice. During the COVID-19 pandemic, with the rise of virtual telemedicine or telehealth, a legal gray area has increasingly emerged. Is it legal if a doctor is only licensed in one state, but either they or their patient are physically in another state during a virtual telehealth visit?
While the answer is “mostly yes,” it’s not “fully yes.”
In 2020, due to the pandemic, most states have temporarily allowed greater levels of medical licensing reciprocity across state lines. Starting in 2017, a few years before the pandemic, a number of states had jointly formed an agreement called the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC). And it’s possible for a doctor to get licensed in multiple states: about 15 percent of doctors are licensed in two states, while about 6 percent are licensed in three or more states.
Still, there is no national law allowing medical licenses across state lines.
What the legislation does
The TREAT (Temporary Reciprocity to Ensure Access to Treatment) Act would allow reciprocity of medical licenses across state lines during national emergencies or public health emergencies, such as the current one, to doctors “in good standing.”
The legislation also clarifies that it would only allow physicians to work across state lines “within the scope of the individual’s license, certification, or authorization.” In other words, a dentist couldn’t perform brain surgery.
The Senate version was introduced on August 4 as bill number S. 4421, by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT). The House version was introduced a month and a half later on September 17 as bill number H.R. 8283, by Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH5).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that during a health crisis like the present moment, many people’s living situations have changed abruptly, such as a record number of young adults living with their parents, so credentialed physicians should be able to treat their patients from anywhere.
“If a health care provider is available to provide care remotely but they practice in a different state than the patient, there should not be hoops for the health care provider or patient to jump through in order for the patient to receive the care they need,” Rep. Latta said in a press release. “With the TREAT Act, health care providers have greater flexibility so they can treat patients regardless of the state they call home.”
“COVID-19 has hammered our already fragile health care system, and the last thing our frontline workers need is more bureaucratic red tape,” Sen. Murphy said in a separate press release. “We should be doing everything in our power to make sure any health care provider, in good standing and with a valid license to practice medicine, can provide services in any location throughout the pandemic.”
What opponents say
While there are supporters of states’ rights who advocate for one-state-only medical licenses during normal times, GovTrack Insider was unable to locate any explicit statements of opposition to this legislation relaxing the requirements specifically during public health emergencies.
Indeed, the list of states which have temporarily relaxed or waived their one-state-only medical license requirement during 2020 include such traditional “states’ rights” red states as Alabama and West Virginia.
Odds of passage
The House version, in addition to its Republican lead sponsor, has attracted seven Democratic cosponsors. It awaits a potential vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The Senate version has attracted four bipartisan cosponsors: three Democrats and one Republican. It awaits a potential vote in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Like our analyses? Want more? Support our work!
