SB372, the Preserve Telehealth Access Act of 2025, makes Maryland’s temporary telehealth coverage rules permanent. It removes the June 30, 2025 sunset on audio-only telephone conversations being treated as telehealth for reimbursement and coverage purposes under the Maryland Medical Assistance Program and certain private health plans, including insurers, nonprofit health service plans, and health maintenance organizations. The bill also keeps in place the requirement that, when a service is appropriately delivered through telehealth, it must be reimbursed on the same basis and at the same rate as an in-person service, subject to the existing exclusions for clinic facility fees and room-and-board fees.
The bill also updates telehealth prescribing rules for controlled dangerous substances. It allows a health care practitioner to prescribe an opioid for pain through telehealth not only in a health care facility or during a declared catastrophic health emergency, but also when there is an established bona fide practitioner-patient relationship and a prior in-person assessment by the practitioner or another practitioner in the same group practice. In addition, the Maryland Health Care Commission must now report every four years, beginning in 2026, on telehealth developments, delivery modalities, costs, and any recommendations.
In practical terms, the bill affects the Maryland Medical Assistance Program, private health insurers, nonprofit health service plans, health maintenance organizations, health care practitioners, and patients who use telehealth. It preserves coverage for audio-only visits and continued parity reimbursement for covered telehealth services, while leaving intact limits on non-covered services, out-of-network reimbursement, and the Health Services Cost Review Commission’s authority over hospital rates.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s voting history was strongly favorable. The recorded votes show overwhelming support in both chambers, including unanimous or near-unanimous third-reading passage, indicating broad bipartisan agreement that telehealth access should continue beyond the prior temporary authorization. The bill’s title and structure also suggest a policy goal of maintaining access rather than expanding telehealth into entirely new areas.
The main point of contention, based on the bill text, is the balance between access and prescribing safeguards. The bill relaxes the prior restriction on telehealth prescribing of opioids for pain, but only under a narrower set of conditions tied to an established practitioner-patient relationship and prior in-person evaluation. Another policy issue is reimbursement parity: the bill preserves same-rate payment for telehealth, which benefits providers and patients but may raise cost concerns for payers and state programs.
SB372 amends the Health – General, Health Occupations, and Insurance Articles of the Maryland Code to remove the expiration date on key telehealth provisions, thereby making audio-only telehealth coverage and same-rate reimbursement permanent for the Maryland Medical Assistance Program and specified private health plans. It also broadens the circumstances under which controlled dangerous substances for pain may be prescribed via telehealth and creates a recurring reporting requirement for the Maryland Health Care Commission. The bill takes effect June 1, 2025, and continues to affect reimbursement, coverage, and prescribing standards for telehealth services statewide.
The overall sentiment around SB372 appears strongly supportive and largely noncontroversial. The voting record shows overwhelming approval in both chambers, including 45-0, 130-0, and 46-1 third-reading votes, suggesting broad legislative consensus in favor of preserving telehealth access. The bill’s framing as a continuation of existing telehealth policy rather than a major expansion likely contributed to the positive reception.
The most notable policy tension is between expanding access to telehealth and maintaining safeguards around controlled substance prescribing. The bill permits telehealth prescribing of opioids for pain only when there is an established bona fide practitioner-patient relationship and a prior in-person assessment, reflecting concern about misuse while still allowing access. A second area of potential concern is reimbursement parity, since requiring payment at the same rate as in-person care may be viewed favorably by providers but could raise cost and utilization concerns for insurers and public programs. No major opposition is evident in the available discussion or voting history.