Permitted somewhere, restricted elsewhere
In some states and under some conditions, telehealth-based evaluation is permitted and can streamline workflows like the good-faith exam; in others it's restricted or not allowed. There is no universal answer, and the rules are evolving and under active regulatory attention — particularly as remote-evaluation models for procedures like injectables have proliferated. So the same telehealth model can be a compliant efficiency in one state and a violation in another.
The 'works elsewhere' trap
This is precisely the area where copying a model that works in another state gets practices in trouble. A telehealth good-faith-exam model that's fully compliant in one jurisdiction may be impermissible in yours, and the rapid growth of these models is exactly what's drawing regulatory scrutiny to whether they meet the standard of individualized medical evaluation. Assuming your telehealth approach transfers across state lines is the same mistake as assuming any scope or supervision rule transfers — and here it's compounded by rules that are actively changing.
Structure it genuinely
Where telehealth is permitted, it has to be structured to genuinely meet the requirements, not used as a shortcut around the individualized evaluation each patient is owed. The same discipline that applies to the good-faith exam in person applies to its telehealth version: it must actually accomplish what it's supposed to, be properly documented, and satisfy your state's rules. Structure it deliberately with counsel and your medical director, confirming what's permitted for your state, rather than adopting a model because it's convenient or common.
What to do
- Confirm what telehealth is permitted in your specific state, recognizing the rules vary and are evolving.
- Don't assume a telehealth model transfers from another state — this is a prime 'works elsewhere' trap.
- Structure any telehealth evaluation to genuinely meet requirements, not as a shortcut around individualized evaluation.
- Watch the active regulatory scrutiny of remote-evaluation models and structure with counsel.
