Does Paying the Same Sustain Telehealth? A Systematic Review of Payment Parity Laws

TL;DR

This study reviews how laws requiring equal payment for telehealth and in-person care affect telehealth use and outcomes in the U.S.

Contribution

The paper provides a systematic review of empirical studies on U.S. telehealth payment parity laws and their effects on utilization and outcomes.

Findings

Payment parity laws are linked to higher telehealth use in community health centers and among cancer patients.

Mental health and substance use disorder care show the highest telemedicine adoption under payment parity.

Payment parity improves medication adherence for hypertension but has mixed effects on emergency care.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Payment parity laws require commercial health plans to pay for telehealth on the same basis as in-person care. We systematically reviewed open-access empirical studies to identify and synthesize empirical U.S. studies that explicitly evaluated state telehealth payment parity (distinct from coverage-only parity) and to summarize reported effects on telehealth utilization, modality mix, quality/adherence, equity/access, and expenditures. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for U.S. studies that explicitly modeled state payment parity or stratified results by payment parity vs. coverage-only vs. no parity. We included original quantitative or qualitative studies with a time or geographic comparator and free full-text availability. The primary outcome was telehealth utilization (share or odds of telehealth use); secondary outcomes were modality mix, quality and adherence, equity and access, and spending. Because designs were heterogeneous (interrupted time series [ITS], difference-in-differences [DiD], regression, qualitative), we used structured narrative synthesis. Results: Nine studies met inclusion criteria. In community health centers (CHCs), payment parity was associated with higher telehealth use (42% of visits in parity states vs. 29% without; Δ = +13.0 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.49–2.03). Among patients with newly diagnosed cancer, adjusted telehealth rates were 23.3% in coverage + payment parity states vs. 19.1% in states without parity, while cross-state practice limits reduced telehealth use (14.9% vs. 17.8%). At the health-system level, parity mandates were linked to a +2.5-percentage-point telemedicine share in 2023, with mental-health (29%) and substance use disorder (SUD) care (21%) showing the highest telemedicine shares. A Medicaid coverage policy bundle increased live-video use by 6.0 points and the proportion “always able to access needed care” by 11.1 points. For hypertension, payment parity improved medication adherence, whereas early emergency department and hospital adoption studies found null associations. Direct spending evidence from open-access sources remained sparse. Conclusions: Across ambulatory settings—especially behavioral health and chronic disease management—state payment parity laws are consistently associated with modest but meaningful increases in telehealth use and some improvements in adherence and perceived access. Effects vary by specialty and are attenuated where cross-state practice limits persist, and the impact of payment parity on overall spending remains understudied.

Figures