GUEST COLUMN: Oregon should move forward with expanded telehealth
Published 7:46 am Saturday, February 7, 2026
“I need a therapist right away.”
I see similar statements on intake paperwork regularly, but generally not with outright declared urgency. The specifics of the following encounter are all too common – an unexpected event and only medication management on board as support. The patient, already months into waiting for therapy, needs more than another sheet of local facilities who have staggering waitlists, limited operating hours or selective insurance coverage.
Thankfully, there is something I can offer today: virtual care for people in crisis. But now, there’s a risk that the state may backtrack on its support for telehealth. And that would be devastating for all Oregonians.
I completed residency in a town of around 17,000 people. I did not expect those same mental health shortages to follow me to my first attending position in Medford, a city five times that size.
Oregon is struggling through a statewide mental health crisis. A 2025 Oregon Health Authority audit found that Oregon ranked 47th in mental illness prevalence with an overall rate of completed suicide higher than the national rate since 2000. Secretary of State Tobias Read called it a “behavioral health crisis in our state.”
Access to therapists, psychiatrists, and social workers can be life-changing, especially for patients with acute symptoms, complex histories, or financial insecurity. But in much of Southern Oregon, higher-acuity mental healthcare is in critically short supply. This is not a new problem, and it is not one that can be solved quickly by growing the local workforce alone.
Patients across Oregon need more, faster, and higher acuity access to mental health resources. Virtual mental healthcare, delivered directly to where patients live, has created opportunities to close these gaps.
In 2021, Oregon passed House Bill 2508A to ensure telehealth parity and increase virtual services statewide. That law allowed patients to receive mental healthcare more quickly, regardless of geography. Recently, however, regulators have signaled that they may roll back support for telehealth providers — at the same time the governor has pledged a full-force effort to address the state’s mental health crisis. Limiting access now would move Oregon in the wrong direction and worsen outcomes for patients who are already struggling.
One provider who may be at risk is Charlie Health, which offers virtual intensive outpatient programs for people who need therapy multiple times per week. Here in Oregon, Charlie Health has served over 6,500 high-acuity patients since 2021, over 60% of whom are covered by Medicaid, according to data from Charlie Health. Ages of patients range from teenagers to older adults and include patients with past suicide attempts, substance use, and major mood symptoms. From my experience, patients are typically scheduled for an initial assessment within 24 to 48 hours — something that would be nearly impossible without telehealth.
I have seen firsthand how access to care through programs like this can change lives. Patients who were overwhelmed by symptoms and stressors regain stability and hope. They return to work, reconnect with family, and begin to move forward. In areas like the Rogue Valley, where in-person options are scarce, virtual programs are often the only viable option I can offer during critical moments.
Importantly, these programs also show measurable results. Studies have shown that telehealth is an equally effective alternative to in-person care, with both in-person and virtual patients showing a similar decrease in depressive symptoms and a similar increase in perceptions of quality of life. An article from a 2022 Journal of Psychiatric Research found that ”for patients living far away from treatment centers or for patients who cannot leave home to attend in-person treatment, these results demonstrate telehealth treatment as a viable alternative to in-person treatment.”
Rolling back virtual mental healthcare would be catastrophic for patients across Oregon—especially those in rural and underserved communities where shortages are most severe. We already have regulations in place to ensure parity between in-person and virtual care, along with oversight to hold providers accountable for outcomes. Telehealth is not a replacement for in-person care, but for many patients, it is the only realistic option.
Because of telehealth, I can now respond differently when a patient tells me they need help immediately. I can offer a concrete solution—one that gets them connected to care quickly and safely. I hope Oregon’s leaders recognize what is at stake and continue moving forward, rather than backward, on telehealth access.
Dr. Joseph Jackmovich is a psychiatrist working in Medford.