Directory · verified September 8, 2026
Telehealth insurance: what they will and will not tell you.
Twenty-two carriers, brokers, and agencies that sell to telehealth and digital-health companies, sorted by what they actually answer rather than ranked. This is deliberately not a price comparison: sixteen of the twenty-two publish nothing about premium or limit, so that table would be a grid of blanks. It is a map of the five questions that decide whether a policy covers your business, and of who answers them. Every claim was verified against the entity's own pages on September 8, 2026.
Three findings, all of them absences. Zero of 22 address compounded-medication coverage or exclusion, which for a GLP-1 or peptide program is the most decision-relevant question in the category. Exactly one addresses whether your entity is named on the policy, and it is a broker's general malpractice article, not a telehealth page: no telehealth-positioned entity here addresses the MSO and friendly-PC structure at all. And every single-layer limit named in the pass is five million dollars, from four different carriers, though one of them stacks a further excess layer on top of it.
Every claim on this page re-checked against the source on .
Read this first: EmbedCare operates telehealth programs and is an interested party, this is not insurance advice, and nothing here is a recommendation: coverage decisions belong with a licensed broker and your counsel. Nothing is ranked and nobody paid to appear. An absence recorded here means the claim was not on the pages we could reach on the verification date, not that an insurer would decline the risk. We restate no financial-strength ratings, since we are not the rater and the published lists we found carry no date. Corrections: anthony@embedcare.com.
One policy for a business that is both a clinic and a software company.
Five carriers sell a single integrated form that stitches medical professional liability to technology errors and omissions, cyber, media, general liability, and products, instead of leaving you to buy four policies and hope the seams hold. One of them names the reason out loud: the gap between technology errors-and-omissions and medical malpractice. Three name a limit, none names a price, and none tells you who is actually on the policy.
| Entity | What it is (its words) | Coverage questions it answers | Price or limits (Sep 8, 2026) | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beazley | A Lloyd's underwriter whose telehealth writing names four pillars: malpractice or professional liability, technology, cyber, and media. Sold through an underwriter conversation rather than a quote form. | Claims-made versus occurrence, partially, and only on the general liability part. Cyber regulatory defense is named. Nothing on 1099 clinicians, entity naming, or compounded medication. | Nothing published: no premium, no limit. | The US virtual-care microsite URLs that circulate for this product are dead as of our check, returning a page that says it does not exist. We are not claiming they changed on a particular date, only that they do not resolve today. Start from the main site. |
| Liberty Mutual | Its Digital Health Professional Liability form bundles professional liability, commercial general liability, and technology errors and omissions, with cyber and products liability as optional add-ons. | Claims-made versus occurrence, directly: it states that both are available. Nothing on the other four, and note that products liability being optional is exactly the coverage a medication program would care about. | Limits without a price: up to $5,000,000 primary and a further $5,000,000 excess. | Distributed through authorized brokers and agents, so you cannot buy it from the carrier. |
| Great American | Complete Care Connect, its professional liability division's integrated form for modern healthcare providers, stitching medical professional liability to the technology and cyber lines. | The only carrier in this pass that addresses independent contractors, naming their inclusion under coverage. Nothing on entity naming, claims-made, cyber regulatory defense, or compounded medication. | Limits without a price: up to $5 million. | Also broker-distributed. The contractor answer is a coverage-list line rather than a described mechanism, so get it in the policy language, not the brochure. |
| Admiral Insurance Group | A W. R. Berkley excess-and-surplus carrier whose Virtual Care form combines medical malpractice, technology errors and omissions, media liability, and cyber. It names the reason the category exists out loud: a gap between technology errors-and-omissions and medical malpractice policies. | Cyber regulatory defense, specifically, naming HIPAA and privacy regulatory parts and a license-defense part. No sublimit is stated. Nothing on the other four. | Limits without a price: primary and excess up to $5 million. | Access is gated, in its own words: made available exclusively through its national network of wholesale brokers. That is two intermediaries between you and the paper, and it is the reason your existing broker may not be able to quote it. |
| CFC | Its eHealth form covers bodily injury arising from healthcare services, technology activities, cyber events, system outages, technology errors and omissions, and products failing to perform. | None of the five, on the pages checked. | Nothing published. | The page never states whether CFC is acting as a carrier, an MGA, or a coverholder on this product, and that determines who actually carries the risk. Ask before you compare it against a carrier's form. |
Cyber that knows what protected health information is.
A genuinely different purchase from the group above, and you will be sold both. The only entity in this whole category that names a premium is a cyber carrier, and even it does not name the HIPAA sublimit that decides whether the policy helps you when a regulator calls.
| Entity | What it is (its words) | Coverage questions it answers | Price or limits (Sep 8, 2026) | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tokio Marine HCC | Its e-MD product is cyber and privacy built for healthcare organizations, from its cyber and professional lines group. | Cyber regulatory defense, through breach response. No HIPAA sublimit is stated, which is the number that decides whether the policy helps you. | The only entity in this entire pass that names a premium: a minimum premium of $750 and a minimum deductible of $1,000, with capacity up to $5,000,000 each claim and $5,000,000 aggregate. | A minimum premium is a floor, not a quote, and the missing sublimit matters more than the headline capacity for a HIPAA-exposed business. |
| SeedPod Cyber | Cyber and technology errors and omissions positioned around healthcare data, naming multi-state breach notification, regulatory response, business interruption, and contingent bodily injury as coverage priorities. | Cyber regulatory defense, including fines and penalties where insurable, and it makes the sharpest point in the pass: the headline limit is often not the limit that applies to your most likely loss. | Nothing published. | Neither of its pages says whether it is a carrier, an MGA, a program manager, or a broker, and it names no paper. Its own about page describes a generalist book. Ask who is on the policy before treating it as a telehealth specialist. |
Malpractice carriers for doctors, with telehealth added.
These insure clinicians and practices. Telehealth is a modality they permit rather than a business they underwrite, which is precisely why the entity question dies here: a policy written for a physician is not written for a brand. One of the four has no telehealth page at all, and another hosts a telehealth URL that tells you to go check some other policy.
| Entity | What it is (its words) | Coverage questions it answers | Price or limits (Sep 8, 2026) | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Doctors Company | A medical professional liability carrier group offering coverage against claims arising from virtual care, with general liability and cyber available as options. | None of the five. | Nothing published. | Its own page names three different underwriting and distribution entities, so confirm which one issues your policy. |
| Indigo | Medical malpractice for physicians across fifteen-plus named specialties. No telehealth or telemedicine page, and no telemedicine wording found on the pages checked. | None of the five. | Nothing published. | Its own footer states that policy obligations are the sole responsibility of a risk retention group. That is a real structural fact: a contract, hospital, or partner that requires an admitted carrier may reject that paper, and the question is worth asking before the renewal, not after. |
| Coverys | A medical liability carrier group founded in 1975. No mention of telehealth, telemedicine, or digital health on the pages checked. | None of the five. | Nothing published. | Two brokers in this pass list it as a telehealth market while its own site names no telehealth product. We are not resolving that: a broker's carrier list is the broker's claim about appetite, not the carrier's. |
| Berxi | A Berkshire Hathaway distribution brand aimed at making professional liability easier to buy, with products distributed through a Berkshire Hathaway insurance agency. | None of the five. | Nothing published. It advertises a percentage saving with no baseline, method, or period stated, which is why the figure is not repeated here. | It hosts a telehealth URL that never says its own product covers telehealth, and instead directs you to check some other policy. Read that page carefully before assuming it is an offer. |
Startup brokers with a digital-health tab.
Fluent in directors and officers, employment practices, and technology errors and omissions, and positioned on your funding stage rather than your clinical structure. Every one names the vertical. Not one addresses whether the professional corporation, the management company, or the contracted nurse practitioner is actually insured.
| Entity | What it is (its words) | Coverage questions it answers | Price or limits (Sep 8, 2026) | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Founder Shield | A data-driven brokerage for high-growth industries with a virtual-care and telemedicine page, partnering with unnamed leading professional liability carriers. | None of the five. | Nothing published. Its characteristic non-answer is worth quoting because the whole group talks this way: premiums are a small fraction of a company's overall insurance spend and are very affordable. | No carrier is named on either page, so you are buying access to a market you cannot inspect in advance. |
| Vouch | A full-service, technology-driven insurance broker in its own words, with a health and life sciences vertical. | None of the five. | Nothing published. | Its own about page describes it as a broker today. If you have older material describing it as an underwriter, confirm which role it plays on your policy rather than assuming. |
| Newfront | A brokerage with a digital-health-and-telemedicine industry page. | None of the five. | Nothing published. | The clearest example in the pass of a named vertical page with nothing checkable behind it: no carrier, no figure, and no answer to any coverage question. |
| Corgi | Describes itself as an AI-native, full-stack insurance platform built for technology companies. Its own disclosures identify a licensed producer entity with coverage underwritten through affiliated or partner carriers. | None of the five. | Publishes bands by funding stage: pre-seed and seed startups often pay $2,000 to $5,000 a year for basic coverage, and Series A companies may pay $5,000 to $15,000 annually. Bands for a general startup book, not a telehealth quote. | Producer, affiliated admitted carrier, and affiliated risk retention group under one brand. A buyer who thinks of it as one company may end up on any of three kinds of paper, so ask which. |
Malpractice retail agencies and marketplaces.
Placement intermediaries, and where the two most useful answers in the whole pass live, alongside its worst evidence hygiene. The only entity that answers whether your professional corporation gets covered is a broker's blog post, and two of the six names in this group are the same company.
| Entity | What it is (its words) | Coverage questions it answers | Price or limits (Sep 8, 2026) | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| World Insurance | A retail broker that negotiates with carriers on your behalf, and the source of the single most useful answer found anywhere in this pass. | The entity question, and it is the only entity that answers it: most medical malpractice policies do not automatically include coverage for your corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or other entity forms, and doing-business-as names are not automatic either. Also covers shared versus separate limits. | Nothing published. | The answer lives in a general malpractice article rather than a telehealth page. It is exactly how a white-label brand gets left off its own policy, and no telehealth-positioned entity in this pass addresses it at all. |
| Gallagher Healthcare | The malpractice niche of a very large global brokerage, with a telemedicine page. | Cross-state telemedicine practice. Nothing on the other four. | Nothing published. | Says it works with all major A-rated carriers and alternative markets, and names none of them. |
| CM&F Group | A long-established malpractice agency placing coverage for individual clinicians and practices. | None of the five. | Nothing published. | Read this row and the next one together: both are divisions of the same parent company, and a shortlist containing both is a shortlist of one. |
| Insureon | An online agency placing small-business and professional liability coverage, including telemedicine malpractice. | Cross-state telemedicine. On medication it comes closest of anyone to the compounded question, and still does not answer it: improper medications or dosage appears as an exposure it names, not as a coverage grant. | Nothing published. Its characteristic non-answer: your premium depends on several factors. | Same parent company as CM&F above. Two of the six names in this group are one company, which is the biggest structural trap in the pass. |
| MEDPLI | A broker connecting physicians with malpractice carriers. | Claims-made versus occurrence, for one carrier, noting it is underwritten on a non-admitted claims-made basis. The entity question only as a service category, not an answer. | Nothing published. It advertises an average percentage saving with no baseline, method, or period stated, which is why the figure is not repeated here. | Its page lists two dozen carriers with financial-strength ratings and no date. Ratings change, we are not the rater, and an undated rating list is not evidence about your quote. |
| Cunningham Group | An agency focused exclusively on helping physicians navigate the medical liability market, with a telemedicine page. | Cross-state licensure, via the interstate compact. On cyber it offers an adjective rather than an answer, saying contracts increasingly require standalone cyber liability. | Names a physician premium range: typically between $5,000 and twenty-five thousand dollars a year. That is a range for physicians, not a quote for a telehealth company. | Its carrier list is its own claim about appetite. Verify with the carrier, not the agency. |
Wholesale access, and why your broker cannot quote some of this.
A structural fact worth knowing before you shop: some of the best-fitting products above cannot be bought from the broker you already have, because the carrier distributes them exclusively through wholesale brokers. That is two intermediaries between you and the paper.
| Entity | What it is (its words) | Coverage questions it answers | Price or limits (Sep 8, 2026) | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Novatae | A wholesale broker and managing general agency that places programs for retail agents, with access to admitted and non-admitted markets, and a stated understanding of hybrid med-spa risks. | Three of the five, more than any other entity here: independent contractors (make sure both employees and independent contractors are covered under the policy), claims-made structure (often written on a claims-made basis, and if coverage is not continuously maintained, prior acts may be excluded), and cyber regulatory fallout including breach notification. | Nothing published. | You cannot buy from a wholesaler directly. Its answers are useful because they tell your retail broker what to ask for, which is a different kind of usefulness from a quote. |
The five questions, and how many entities answer each.
These are the counts across all 22 entities. Read them as the page's actual content: the columns are almost empty, and that emptiness is what a shortlist built from websites will not show you.
| Question to get answered in writing | Answered by | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Are compounded or off-label medications covered, or excluded? | 0 of 22 | The most consequential question for a recurring-Rx program, and the public record is silent. |
| Is my entity on the policy: the PC, the management company, every brand name I trade under? | 1 of 22 | And that one is a general malpractice article, not a telehealth page. |
| Are 1099 contract clinicians covered, or only employees? | 2 of 22 | One carrier and one wholesaler. |
| Claims-made or occurrence, and what happens to prior acts if coverage lapses? | 4 of 22 | The lapse question is the one that bites on a switch. |
| Does cyber respond to a regulatory investigation, and at what sublimit? | 5 of 22 | Five name the coverage. Zero name the sublimit. |
Four entities we could not row, and one category that does not exist.
Twenty-six entities were checked and twenty-two returned usable content. The other four are named here rather than guessed at. MedPro Group and Embroker have no reachable telehealth or health page at all, so nothing about their appetite is asserted either way. Pharmacists Mutual and the Telehealth Certification Institute block automated requests entirely. In every case the honest record is that we could not read the page, not that the coverage does not exist.
One category was looked for specifically and could not be supported: telehealth-specialist managing general agents and programs. Named telehealth practice pages exist at several intermediaries. A telehealth-specific underwriting facility with a checkable product behind it does not appear anywhere in this pass, and the entity that self-describes closest to that shape names no paper and describes a generalist book on its own about page. Rather than build a section over nothing, we are saying so. This page is re-verified on the quarterly runbook cadence, and additions require the same same-day verification pass it was built from.
Questions operators actually ask.
Does any of these policies cover compounded medications?
Not one of the 22 entities addresses it, on any page we could reach. Not a carrier, not the wholesaler that writes about med-spa risk, nobody. The closest anyone comes is an agency naming improper medications or dosage as an exposure, which is a description of a risk rather than a grant of coverage. For a GLP-1, peptide, or hormone program this is the single most decision-relevant question in the category, and the public record is silent on it. That does not mean coverage does not exist; it means you will only find out by asking in writing and reading the exclusions, and that no amount of comparison shopping on websites will answer it.
Will the policy cover my PC, my MSO, or just the doctor?
One entity in the pass answers this, and it is a retail broker's general malpractice article rather than any telehealth page: most medical malpractice policies do not automatically include coverage for your corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other entity forms, and doing-business-as names are not automatic either. That is exactly how a white-label brand ends up absent from its own policy. No telehealth-positioned carrier, broker, or agency in this pass addresses the MSO and friendly-PC structure at all, which is remarkable given that it is the standard shape of the businesses they are selling to. Put the entity names, including every brand you trade under, in front of the underwriter in writing.
What limits can a telehealth company actually get?
Every single-layer limit named in this pass is five million dollars. Four different carriers, one number, expressed as up to $5 million or up to $5,000,000 each claim and aggregate. Be precise about what that does and does not mean, because the distinction is the useful part: it is the largest individual layer anyone advertises, not the most capacity available. One carrier publishes a $5,000,000 primary and a further $5,000,000 excess, so ten million of advertised capacity exists on its own page, stacked rather than written on one policy. If your enterprise customer or pharmacy partner demands more than that, you are building a tower, which is a conversation with a wholesale broker rather than something you will find on a website.
Why does almost nobody name a price?
Because insurance is underwritten rather than listed, and because a premium without a risk profile is meaningless. Six of the 22 publish anything at all. Three name a price: a cyber carrier's minimum premium of $750 with a $1,000 minimum deductible, a startup platform's bands by funding stage, and an agency's physician premium range. Three more name a limit without naming a price. That is six entities and not seven, because the cyber carrier appears in both groups, and six leaves sixteen that say nothing about either. The useful conclusion is not that the market is hiding something; it is that a price comparison is the wrong tool here, and the coverage questions above are the right one.
Are there insurers that specialize in telehealth?
There are carriers with a telehealth or virtual-care form, and there are brokers with a telehealth page. What we could not find, after looking specifically for it, is a telehealth-specific managing general agent or program facility with a checkable product behind it. Several intermediaries name a telehealth practice; the closest thing to a specialist underwriter names no paper and describes a generalist book on its own about page. Treat specialist as a claim about attention rather than about a product, and confirm which carrier is actually issuing.
How is EmbedCare different from working through this list?
This page is diligence material for a program you are operating, and the questions on it are yours to answer whichever way you go. What changes on an operated platform is how much of the risk surface is yours to insure in the first place: EmbedCare runs the clinical layer with 50-state clinicians, owned pharmacy supply with medication included on GLP-1 programs, the storefront, retention, and compliance behind your brand on flat product rates fixed in a signed partner agreement, with a self-serve Launch tier starting at $495/mo. You will still carry your own coverage, and you should still ask every question above; the difference is the size of what you are covering.
Want a smaller risk surface to insure in the first place? Get the partner overview.
One email, no sequence. A human follows up with your program scoped.
Keep exploring
The MSO model, explained
The structure no insurer in this pass addresses, and why it matters here.
HIPAA for telehealth startups
What a cyber policy is actually responding to.
How clinician networks work
The 1099-versus-employed question two entities answer.
Clinician network directory
The layer whose contracts drive most of the insurance requirements.
The stack index
Where insurance sits among the nine layers.
Fewer moving parts to cover.
EmbedCare operates the clinical, pharmacy, and compliance layers behind your brand, so the questions on this page apply to a smaller business than the one you would otherwise build.