Resources & Reports

A commonly cited concern regarding telehealth utilization is that it may not provide an equivalent experience—or may even offer an inferior one—for both patients and providers, due to the absence of shared physical presence. For example, one concern that has been raised includes missing patient non-verbal cues as the provider may not be able to view all of the physical manifestations of the patient during a video visit. These types of telehealth limitations have led to certain policies being put into place that require in-person interactions.

Federal activity around artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare continues to accelerate, highlighted by a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report examining both the promise and risks of AI.  The GAO report provides a comprehensive overview of how AI is currently being used across the healthcare sector, including applications in diagnostics, clinical decision support, administrative efficiency, and public health surveillance. It highlights the potential for AI to improve outcomes, expand access, and reduce costs, but also underscores significant risks related to data quality, bias, transparency, and oversight.

Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in California that claimed that Mochi Medical had violated labor laws by not treating physicians as employees and paying them accordingly. Cioppettini v. Mochi Medical was filed in February 2026 and alleges seven violations of California and federal labor laws including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all wages, failure to reimburse for business expenses and others. Mochi Medical is a telehealth company focused on providing weight loss services. Dr. Cioppettini is a physician based in South Carolina who worked as a licensed physician for Mochi. Mochi claims that Dr. Cioppettini and all health care providers it works with are independent contractors.

CCHP’s April newsletter is here! This month’s topics include – MACPAC March 2026 Report Highlights Medicaid Workforce & Behavioral Health; Michigan Preserves IMLC Participation, Avoiding Disruptions to Physician Licensure and Patient Care; FTC Launches Healthcare Task Force; CMS Launches ASPIRE Model as CMMI Faces Ongoing Questions on Savings; HHS Highlights Telenutrition’s Role in Addressing Chronic Disease and Obesity; Commonwealth Fund Analysis Finds Telehealth Does Not Increase Low-Value Care; Key Telehealth Policy Developments from CCHP’s Policy Finder.

In December 2023, a case was filed in US District Court for New Jersey that challenged New Jersey’s in-state licensure law.  The law (NJ Statute C:45:1-62(2)(b)) requires health care providers to be licensed in New Jersey in order to provide telehealth services to New Jersey patients. Generally, licensure of medical professionals, in this case physicians, is within the jurisdiction of states to decide and regulate, however the plaintiffs in Shannon MacDonald, MD, et al v. Otto Sabando claimed that New Jersey’s licensure restrictions preventing the cross-state use of telehealth were illegal based upon four different constitutional arguments:

1. Commerce Clause & Dormant Commerce Clause
2. Privileges and Immunities Clause
3. First Amendment Protection on Speech
4. Due Process Clause