Journal of Medical Toxicology

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 242–247 | Cite as

Telemedicine Delivery and Successful Reimbursement in Toxicology

  • Peter W. Crane
  • Timothy J. Wiegand
  • Michael Kamali
  • Marilynn Reif
  • Rose Wratni
  • Ronald Montante
  • Tracey Loveland
Original Article



Telemedicine and its use in medical toxicology have existed for some time. There are varied definitions, but existing ones center on using currently available forms of audio, video, and internet communications to provide “real-time” patient care. Definitions have historically limited reimbursement but recently expanded CMS guidelines have improved this. Here we describe our experience with telemedicine and reimbursement.


A retrospective study was conducted of all toxicology and billing reimbursement for fiscal year 2016 for a solo Medical Toxicology service. Clinical identifiers were used to match telemedicine consults to hospital financial databases and then removed. Telemedicine consults were isolated, quantified, and described.


A total of 16 telemedicine consults were conducted. Average age was 37.2 (range 2 months–82 years). Gender was evenly split at 8:8. Twenty-five percent were pediatric consultations. The main purposes of consultation were as follows: diagnosis and disease management in drug ingestion, triage assistance, clearance consults, antidote administration, and buprenorphine induction. At the time of the work, $1896.00 for 9.3 h of teletoxicology services was reimbursed equating to an hourly reimbursement rate of $203.90/h.


Our data was obtained from a toxicology practice with a surrounding infrastructure dedicated to telemedicine. All sites may not have this robust ancillary support. Furthermore, not all states have reimbursement mandates such as New York State.


To our knowledge, this is the first published work describing pilot data in the successful reimbursement for Medical Toxicology services delivered via telemedicine. Toxicology via telemedicine represents a great opportunity for advancing the practice of toxicology in an economically feasible way, particularly in rural or underserved areas.


Toxicology Billing Charges Reimbursement Compensation Telemedicine Teletoxicology 


Sources of Funding


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    McManus J, Salinas J, Morton M, Lappan C, Poropatich R. Teleconsultation program for deployed soldiers and healthcare professionals in remote and austere environments. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008;23(3):210–6. discussion 217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klonoff DC. Using telemedicine to improve outcomes in diabetes—an emerging technology. SAGE Publications; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deldar K, Bahaadinbeigy K, Tara SM. Teleconsultation and clinical decision making: a systematic review. Acta Inform Med. 2016;24(4):286–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Strode SW, Gustke S, Allen A. Technical and clinical progress in telemedicine. JAMA. 1999;281(12):1066–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Price M. Towards a better connection: a federally-led uniform reimbursement scheme for telemedicine. 2017.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beach F. 2015 ACMT Annual Scientific Meeting, March 27–29, 2015 clearwater. J Med Toxicol. 2015;11:2–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bass RJ, editor. “Expanded coverage of telemedicine”. telehealth & telemedicine: progress and barriers in New York. Albany Law School; 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vohra RMG, editor. Is it primetime for facetime? Video telephone app use in toxicology consultations. 2014 ACMT Annual Scientific Meeting—March 28–30, 2014 Phoenix, AZ, USA; 2014; Pheonix, AZ. J. Med. Toxicol.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Center CfCHPTNTPR. State Telehealth Laws And Reimbursement Policies: a comprehensive scan of the 50 states and district of Columbia 2017 [cited 2018 January 30]. Available from:
  10. 10.
    Moore P, Suda K, Caicedo C-A. Establishing a telemedicine toxicology service using an established interac-ve audio—visual consult network. Crit Care. 2014;188:75min.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chai PR, Babu KM, Boyer EW. The feasibility and acceptability of Google Glass for teletoxicology consults. J Med Toxicol. 2015;11(3):283–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chai PR, Wu RY, Ranney ML, Porter PS, Babu KM, Boyer EW. The virtual toxicology service: wearable head-mounted devices for medical toxicology. J Med Toxicol. 2014;10(4):382–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Skolnik AB, Chai PR, Dameff C, Gerkin R, Monas J, Padilla-Jones A, et al. Teletoxicology: patient assessment using wearable audiovisual streaming technology. J Med Toxicol. 2016;12(4):358–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leikin JB, Vogel S, Samo D, Stevens P, Walter FG. Reimbursement profile of a private toxicology practice. Clin Toxicol. 2006;44(3):261–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiegand TJ, Crane PW, Kamali M, Reif M, Wratni R, Montante R, et al. Billing and reimbursement for a bedside toxicology service at a tertiary care academic center during its first fiscal year. J Med Toxicol. 2015;11(1):48–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American College of Medical Toxicology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter W. Crane
    • 1
  • Timothy J. Wiegand
    • 1
  • Michael Kamali
    • 1
  • Marilynn Reif
    • 1
  • Rose Wratni
    • 1
  • Ronald Montante
    • 1
  • Tracey Loveland
    • 1
  1. 1.University of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations