Search

The supply of psychiatrists in the United States is inadequate to address the unmet demand for mental health care. Psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners (PMHNPs) may fill the widening gap between supply of and demand for mental health specialists with prescribing privileges. Using Medicare claims for a 100 percent sample of fee-for-service beneficiaries (average age, sixty-one years) who had an office visit for either a psychiatrist or a PMHNP during the period 2011-19, we examined how the supply and use of psychiatrists and PMHNPs changed over time, and we compared their practice patterns. Psychiatrists and PMHNPs treated roughly comparable patient populations with similar services and prescriptions. From 2011 to 2019 the number of PMHNPs treating Medicare beneficiaries grew 162 percent, compared with a 6 percent relative decrease in the number of psychiatrists doing so. During the same period, total annual mental health office visits per 100 beneficiaries decreased 11.5 percent from 27.4 to 24.2, the net result of a 29.0 percent drop in psychiatrist visits being offset by a 111.3 percent increase in PMHNP visits. The proportion of all mental health prescriber visits provided by PMHNPs increased from 12.5 percent to 29.8 percent during 2011-19, exceeding 50 percent in rural, full-scope-of-practice regions. PMHNPs are a rapidly growing workforce that may be instrumental in improving mental health care access.

In the Furthering Access to Stroke Telemedicine (FAST) Act, passed as part of a budget omnibus in 2018, Congress permanently expanded Medicare payment for telemedicine consultations for acute stroke ("telestroke") from delivery only in rural areas to delivery in both urban and rural areas, effective January 1, 2019. Using a controlled time-series analysis, we found that one year after FAST Act implementation, billing for Medicare telestroke increased substantially in emergency departments at both directly affected urban hospitals and indirectly affected rural hospitals. However, at that time only a minority of hospitals with known telestroke capacity had ever billed Medicare for that service, and there was substantial billing inconsistent with Medicare requirements. As Congress considers options for Medicare telemedicine payment after the COVID-19 pandemic, our findings, which are consistent with confusion among providers regarding telemedicine billing requirements, suggest that simplified payment rules would help ensure that expanded reimbursement achieves its intended impact.

ImportanceEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, states implemented temporary changes allowing physicians without a license in their state to provide care to their residents. There is an ongoing debate at both the federal and state levels on whether to change licensure rules permanently to facilitate out-of-state telemedicine use.ObjectiveTo describe out-of-state telemedicine use during the pandemic.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study of telemedicine visits included all patients with traditional Medicare from January through June 2021.Main Outcomes and MeasuresTelemedicine visits from January through June 2021 where the patient’s home address and the physician’s practice address were in different states.ResultsIn describing which patients and specialties were using out-of-state telemedicine, we focused on the period between January to June 2021. We chose this period because it was after the turmoil of the early pandemic, when vaccines became widely available and the health care system had stabilized, but before many of the temporary licensing regulations began to lapse by mid-2021. In the first half of 2021, there were 8 392 092 patients with a telemedicine visit and, of these, 422 547 (5.0%) had 1 or more out-of-state telemedicine visits. Those who lived in a county close to a state border (within 15 miles) accounted for 57.2% of all out-of-state telemedicine visits. Among the out-of-state visits in this time period, 64.3% were with a primary care or mental health clinician. For 62.6% of all out-of-state visits, a prior in-person visit occurred between the same patient and clinician between March 2019 and the visit. The demographics and conditions treated were similar for within-state and out-of-state telemedicine visits, with several notable exceptions. Among those with a telemedicine visit, people in rural communities were more likely to receive out-of-state telemedicine care (33.8% vs 21.0%), and there was high of out-of-state telemedicine use for cancer care (9.8% of all telemedicine visits for cancer care).Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that licensure restrictions of out-of-state telemedicine would have had the largest effect on patients who lived near a state border, those in rural locales, and those who received primary care or mental health treatment.

Objective During the first 9 months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many emergency departments (EDs) experimented with telehealth applications to reduce virus exposure, decrease visit volume, and conserve personal protective equipment. We interviewed ED leaders who implemented telehealth programs to inform responses to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and future emergencies. Materials and Methods From September to November 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with ED leaders across the United States. We identified EDs with pandemic-related telehealth programs through literature review and snowball sampling. Maximum variation sampling was used to capture a range of experiences. We used standard qualitative analysis techniques, consisting of both inductive and deductive approaches to identify and characterize themes. Results We completed 15 interviews with EDs leaders in 10 states. From March to November 2020, participants experimented with more than a dozen different types of telehealth applications including tele-isolation, tele-triage, tele-consultation, virtual postdischarge assessment, acute care in the home, and tele-palliative care. Prior experience with telehealth was key for implementation of new applications. Most new telehealth applications turned out to be temporary because they were no longer needed to support the response. The leading barriers to telehealth implementation during the pandemic included technology challenges and the need for “hands-on” implementation support in the ED. Conclusions In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, EDs rapidly implemented many telehealth innovations. Their experiences can inform future responses.

Telemedicine and Medical Licensure The growth of telemedicine is seen by some physicians, academics, and policymakers as a silver lining of the Covid-19 pandemic. Congress is considering bills that...

Access to specialty mental health care remains challenging for people with serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Whether expansion of telemedicine is associated with improved access and quality of care for these patients is unclear.To assess whether greater telemedicine use in a nonmetropolitan county is associated with quality measures, including use of specialty mental health care and medication adherence.In this cohort study, the variable uptake of telemental health visits was examined across a national sample of fee-for-service claims from Medicare beneficiaries in 2916 nonmetropolitan counties between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018. Beneficiaries with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders and/or bipolar I disorder during the study period were included. For each year of the study, each county was categorized based on per capita telemental health service use (none, low, moderate, and high). The association between telemental health service use in the county and quality measures was tested using a multivariate model controlling for both patient characteristics and county fixed effects. Analyses were conducted from January 1 to April 11, 2022. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine reimbursement was limited to nonmetropolitan beneficiaries.Receipt of a minimum of 2 specialty mental health service visits (telemedicine or in-person) in the year, number of months per year with medication, hospitalization rate, and outpatient follow-up visits after a mental health hospitalization in a year.In 2018, there were 2916 counties with 118 170 patients (77 068 [65.2%] men; mean [SD] age, 58.3 [15.6] years) in the sample. The fraction of counties that had high telemental health service use increased from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018. In 2018 there were 1.08 telemental health service visits per patient in the high telemental health counties. Compared with no telemental health care in the county, patients in high-use counties were 1.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.81-1.60 percentage points) (8.0% relative increase) more likely to have a minimum number of specialty mental health service visits, 13.7 percentage points (95% CI, 5.1-22.3 percentage points) (6.5% relative increase) more likely to have outpatient follow-up within 7 days of a mental health hospitalization, and 0.47 percentage points (95% CI, 0.25-0.69 percentage points) (7.6% relative increase) more likely to be hospitalized in a year. Telemental health service use was not associated with changes in medication adherence.The findings of this study suggest that greater use of telemental health visits in a county was associated with modest increases in contact with outpatient specialty mental health care professionals and greater likelihood of follow-up after hospitalization. No substantive changes in medication adherence were noted and an increase in mental health hospitalizations occurred.

Objectives. To examine whether growing use of telemental health (TMH) has reduced the rural–urban gap in specialty mental health care use in the United States. Methods. Using 2010–2017 Medicare data, we analyzed trends in the rural–urban difference in rates of specialty visits (in-person and TMH). Results. Among rural beneficiaries diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, TMH use grew by 425% over the 8 years and, in higher-use rural areas, accounted for one quarter of all specialty mental health visits in 2017. Among patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, TMH visits differentially grew in rural areas by 0.14 visits from 2010 to 2017. This growth partially offset the 0.42-visit differential decline in in-person visits in rural areas. In net, the gap between rural and urban patients in specialty visits was larger by 2017. Conclusions. TMH has improved access to specialty care in rural areas, particularly for individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. While growth in TMH use has been insufficient to eliminate the overall rural–urban difference in specialty care use, this difference may have been larger if not for TMH. Public Health Implications. Targeted policy to extend TMH to underserved areas may help offset declines in in-person specialty care.

Updating Medicare’s Valuation of Procedures For most surgical procedures, Medicare and many other insurers give physicians a single bundled payment that covers both the procedure itself and related...

We know very little about how the pandemic impacted outpatient alcohol use disorder (AUD) care and the role of telemedicine.Using OptumLabs® Data Warehouse de-identified administrative claims, we identified AUD cohorts in 2018 (N = 23,204) and 2019 (N = 23,445) and examined outpatient visits the following year, focusing on week 12, corresponding to the March 2020 US COVID-19 emergency declaration, through week 52. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined the association between patient demographic and clinical characteristics and receipt of any outpatient AUD visits in 2020 vs. 2019.In 2020, weekly AUD visit utilization decreased maximally at the pandemic start (week 12) by 22.5 % (2019: 3.8 %, 2020: 3.0 %, percentage point change [95 % CI] = -0.86[-1.19, -0.05]) but was similar to 2019 utilization by mid-April 2020 (week 16). Telemedicine accounted for 50.1 % of AUD visits by early July 2020 (week 27). Individual therapy returned to 2019 levels within 1 week (i.e., week 13) whereas group therapy did not consistently do so until mid-August 2020 (week 31). Further, individual therapy exceeded 2019 levels by as much as 50 % starting mid-October 2020. The study found no substantial differences in visits by patient demographic or clinical characteristics.Among patients with known AUD, initial outpatient care disruptions were relatively brief. However, substantial shifts occurred in care delivery-an embrace of telemedicine but also more pronounced, longer disruptions in group therapy vs. individual and an increase in individual therapy use. Further research needs to help us understand the implications of these findings for clinical outcomes.

This cross-sectional study examines whether an association exists between US county-level prescription rates of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and how people voted in the 2020 US presidential election.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether there were fewer missed medical appointments (“no‐shows”) for patients and clinics affected by a significant public transportation expansion. STUDY SETTING: A new light rail line was opened in a major metropolitan area in June 2014. We obtained electronic health records data from an integrated health delivery system in the area with over three million appointments at 97 clinics between 2013 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: We used a difference‐in‐differences research design to compare whether no‐show appointment rates differentially changed among patients and clinics located near versus far from the new light rail line after it opened. Models included fixed effects to account for underlying differences across clinics, patient zip codes, and time. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We obtained data from an electronic health records system representing all appointments scheduled at 97 outpatient clinics in this system. We excluded same‐day, urgent care, and canceled appointments. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The probability of no‐show visits differentially declined by 0.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.9 to −0.1), or 4.5% relative to baseline, for patients living near the new light rail compared to those living far from it, after the light rail opened. The effects were stronger among patients covered by Medicaid (−1.6 percentage points [95% CI: −2.4 to −0.8] or 9.5% relative to baseline). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements to public transit may improve access to health care, especially for people with low incomes.

Key Points Question How was telemedicine used by rural Medicare beneficiaries in the decade prior to the COVID-19 pandemic? Findings This cross-sectional study of 10.4 million rural Medicare beneficiaries found sustained annual compound growth in telemedicine use among rural beneficiaries covered by Medicare in 2010 to 2019, especially for care provided by nurse practitioners and other nonphysician clinicians. Medicare beneficiaries with serious mental illness (eg, bipolar disorder) used a disproportionate share of all telemedicine visits, with more than 1 in 10 beneficiaries using telemedicine annually in 891 counties in the US. Meaning The findings of this cross-sectional study indicate that telemedicine use grew rapidly before the COVID-19 pandemic among Medicare beneficiaries with mental health conditions; the model of telemedicine provided in the local health care setting before 2020 may be a viable modality for continued use in rural communities., Importance Little is known about how telemedicine use was evolving before the broad changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Understanding prepandemic patterns of telemedicine use can inform ongoing debates on the future of telemedicine policy. Objective To describe trends in telemedicine utilization among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries before the COVID-19 pandemic and the specialties of clinicians providing telemedicine. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a cross-sectional study and descriptive analysis of telemedicine utilization by 10.4 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2019. Data analysis was performed from June 6, 2019, to July 30, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Rates of telemedicine utilization, characteristics of beneficiaries who received telemedicine in 2010 to 2019, and specialties of clinicians delivering telemedicine. Results Of 10.4 million rural Medicare beneficiaries, telemedicine was used by 91 483 individuals (age ≥65 years, 47 135 [51.5%]; women, 51 476 [56.3%]; and White, 76 467 [83.6%] individuals) in 2019. In 2010 to 2019, telemedicine visits grew by 23.1% annually. A total of 0.9% of all fee-for-service rural beneficiaries had a telemedicine visit in 2019 compared with 0.2% in 2010. In 2019, there were 257 979 telemedicine visits or 34.8 visits per 1000 rural beneficiaries and most (75.9%) of these visits were for mental health conditions. Patients with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia (3.0% of rural beneficiaries) received 40% of all telemedicine visits in 2019. Some traditionally disadvantaged and underserved groups comprised a larger share of telemedicine users than nonusers in 2019, such as those dually insured with Medicaid (56.9% of users vs 18.6% of nonusers; adjusted odd ratio, 3.83; 95% CI, 3.77-3.89). In 2010 to 2019, telemedicine for mental health conditions shifted away from psychiatrists (71.2% to 35.8% of all telemedicine visits) to nonphysician clinicians, eg, nurse practitioners, psychologists, and social workers (21.4% to 57.2%). There was wide variation in telemedicine utilization in 2019 across counties: median (IQR), 16.0 (2.5-51.4) telemedicine users per 1000 beneficiaries). In 891 counties (29% of all US counties), at least 10% of beneficiaries with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia used a telemedicine service in 2019. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of telemedicine utilization before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was sustained growth in telemedicine visits among rural beneficiaries covered by the Medicare program, especially care delivered by nurse practitioners and other nonphysician clinicians. The prepandemic model of telemedicine provided in local health care settings may be a viable modality to maintain in rural communities., This cross-sectional study describes telemedicine utilization trends among rural Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2019 to ascertain if the model being used before the COVID-19 pandemic should continue to be used.

ImportanceRising drug costs contribute to medication nonadherence and adverse health outcomes. Real-time prescription benefit (RTPB) systems present prescribers with patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates and recommend lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives at the point of prescribing.ObjectiveTo investigate whether RTPB recommendations lead to reduced patient out-of-pocket costs for medications.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this cluster randomized trial, medical practices in a large, urban academic health system were randomly assigned to RTPB recommendations from January 13 to July 31, 2021. Participants were adult patients receiving outpatient prescriptions during the study period. The analysis was limited to prescriptions for which RTPB could recommend an available alternative. Electronic health record data were used to analyze the intervention’s effects on prescribing. Data analyses were performed from August 20, 2021, to June 8, 2022.InterventionsWhen a prescription was initiated in the electronic health record, the RTPB system recommended available lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives for a different medication, length of prescription, and/or choice of pharmacy. The prescriber could select either the initiated order or one of the recommended options.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPatient out-of-pocket cost for a prescription. Secondary outcomes were whether a mail-order prescription and a 90-day supply were ordered.ResultsOf 867 757 outpatient prescriptions at randomized practices, 36 419 (4.2%) met the inclusion criteria of having an available alternative. Out-of-pocket costs were $39.90 for a 30-day supply in the intervention group and $67.80 for a 30-day supply in the control group. The intervention led to an adjusted 11.2%; (95% CI, −15.7% to −6.4%) reduction in out-of-pocket costs. Mail-order pharmacy use was 9.6% and 7.6% in the intervention and control groups, respectively (adjusted 1.9 percentage point increase; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.0). Rates of 90-day supply were not different. In high-cost drug classes, the intervention reduced out-of-pocket costs by 38.9%; 95% CI, −47.6% to −28.7%.Conclusions and RelevanceThis cluster randomized clinical trial showed that RTPB recommendations led to lower patient out-of-pocket costs, with the largest savings occurring for high-cost medications. However, RTPB recommendations were made for only a small percentage of prescriptions.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04940988; American Economic Association Registry: AEARCTR-0006909

Background Use of telemental health has increased among rural Medicare beneficiaries, particularly among individuals with serious mental illness (SMI). Little is known about what leads to the initiation of telemental health. Objective To categorize the different patterns of mental health care use before initiation of telemental health services among individuals with SMI. Methods A cohort of rural beneficiaries with SMI (defined as schizophrenia/related psychotic disorders or bipolar disorder) with an index telemental health visit in 2010-2017 was built using claims for a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. The authors used latent class analysis to identify classes of mental health care use in the 6 months before the index telemental health visits. Across the classes, the authors also described characteristics of index and subsequent mental health visits. Results The cohort included 4930 rural Medicare beneficiaries with SMI. Three classes of mental health care use before initiation of telemental health were identified. The largest class (n=3066) had minimal use of primary care provider mental health care and the second largest class (n=1537) had minimal specialty mental health care. The smallest class (n=327) was characterized by recent hospitalization or emergency department care. In the overall cohort, index visits were frequently established visits and were often with specialty prescribers. Conclusions Our findings highlight 3 distinct patterns of care before telemental health initiation, providing insight into the role that telemedicine may play in mental health care for rural Medicare beneficiaries with SMI. Overall, telemental health was most often used to maintain care with existing providers.

Recent reductions in readmission rates have been attributed to public reporting and pay-for-performance initiatives focused on readmissions. However, admission rates also declined during the same period. We demonstrate that, because the probability of an admission occurring soon after another is lower when there are fewer admissions per patient, the reduction in admission rates may have explained much of the reduction in readmission rates.

Medicare's annual wellness visit was introduced in 2011 to promote evidence-based preventive care and identify risk factors and undiagnosed conditions in aging adults. Use of the visit has risen steadily since then, yet its benefits remain unclear. Using national Medicare data for 2008-15, we examined claims from fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries attributed to practices that did or did not adopt the visit. We performed difference-in-differences analysis to compare differential changes in appropriate and low-value cancer screening, functional and neuropsychiatric care, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and total spending. Examining 17.8 million beneficiary-years, we found modest differential improvements in rates of evidence-based screening and declines in emergency department visits. However, when we accounted for trends that predated the introduction of the visit, none of these benefits persisted. In sum, we found no substantive association between annual wellness visits and improvements in care.

Objective To understand clinician use of and opinions about telemedicine for opioid use disorder (tele-OUD) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods An electronic national survey was administered in fall 2020 to 602 OUD clinicians recruited from WebMD/Medscape’s online panel. The survey completion rate was 97.3 %. Results On average, clinicians reported that 56.9 % of their visits in the last month were via telemedicine (20.3 % via audio-only and 36.6 % via video). Most respondents (N = 376, 62.5 %) agreed that telemedicine has been as effective as in-person care. The majority (N = 535, 88.9 %) were comfortable using video for clinically stable patients, while half (N = 297, 49.3 %) were comfortable using video for patients who are not clinically stable. After the pandemic, most respondents (N = 422, 70.1 %) preferred to return to in-person care for the majority of visits; however, 95.3 % thought telemedicine should be offered in some form. Most (N = 481, 79.9 %) would continue to offer telemedicine if reimbursement were the same as in-person, while 242 (40.2 %) would continue if reimbursement were 25 % lower. Clinicians with more OUD patients used more telemedicine and reported higher comfort levels treating clinically unstable patients, and clinicians with more Medicaid/uninsured patients used more audio-only and preferred to continue using telemedicine post-pandemic. Conclusions Telemedicine made up the majority of OUD visits provided by surveyed clinicians, and the vast majority of clinicians would like the option to offer telemedicine to at least some of their patients in the future if there is adequate reimbursement. These findings can help inform telemedicine’s future role in the treatment of OUD.

Importance Medicare’s Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, initiated in 2016, is a national episode-based payment model for lower-extremity joint replacement (LEJR). Metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) were randomly assigned to participation. In the third year of the program, Medicare made hospital participation voluntary in half of the MSAs and enabled LEJRs for knees to be performed in the outpatient setting without being subject to episode-based payment. How these changes affected program savings is unclear. Objective To estimate savings from the CJR program over time and assess how responses by hospitals to changing incentives were associated with those savings. Design, Participants, and Setting This controlled population-based study used Medicare claims data from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019, to analyze the spending for beneficiaries who received LEJR in 171 MSAs randomized to CJR vs typical payment. One-quarter of beneficiaries before and after the April 1, 2016, start date were excluded as a 6-month washout period (January 1 to June 30, 2016) to allow time in the evaluation period for hospitals to respond to the program rules. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were episode spending and, starting in year 3 of the program, the hospitals’ decision to no longer participate in CJR and perform LEJRs in the outpatient setting. Results Data from 1 087 177 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.4 [8.4] years; 692 604 women [63.7%]; 980 635 non-Hispanic White patients [90.2%]) were analyzed. Over the first 4 years of CJR, 321 038 LEJR episodes were performed at 702 CJR hospitals, and 456 792 episodes were performed at 826 control hospitals. From the second to the fourth year of the program, savings in CJR vs control MSAs diminished from −$976 per LEJR episode (95% CI, −$1340 to −$612) to −$331 (95% CI, −$792 to $130). In MSAs where hospital participation was made voluntary in the third year, more hospitals in the highest quartile of baseline spending dropped out compared with the lowest quartile (56 of 60 [93.3%] vs 29 of 56 [51.8%]). In MSAs where participation remained mandatory, CJR hospitals shifted fewer knee replacements to the outpatient setting in years 3 to 4 than controls (12 571 of 59 182 [21.2%] vs 21 650 of 68 722 [31.5%] of knee LEJRs). In these mandatory MSAs, 75% of the reduction in savings per episode from years 1 to 2 to years 3 to 4 of the program ($455; 95% CI, $137-$722) was attributable to CJR hospitals’ decision on which patients would undergo surgery or whether the surgical procedure would occur in the outpatient setting. Conclusions and Relevance This controlled population-based study found that savings observed in the second year of CJR largely dissipated by the fourth year owing to a combination of responses among hospitals to changes in the program. These results suggest a need for caution regarding the design of new alternative payment models.

IMPORTANCE: Telestroke is increasingly used in hospital emergency departments, but there has been limited research on its impact on treatment and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe differences in care patterns and outcomes among patients with acute ischemic stroke who present to hospitals with and without telestroke capacity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with acute ischemic stroke who first presented to hospitals with telestroke capacity were matched with patients who presented to control hospitals without telestroke capacity. All traditional Medicare beneficiaries with a primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke (approximately 2.5 million) who presented to a hospital between January 2008 and June 2017 were considered. Matching was based on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, hospital characteristics, and month and year of admission. Hospitals included short-term acute care and critical access hospitals in the US without local stroke expertise. In 643 hospitals with telestroke capacity, there were 76 636 patients with stroke who were matched 1:1 to patients at similar hospitals without telestroke capacity. Data were analyzed in July 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Receipt of reperfusion treatment through thrombolysis with alteplase or thrombectomy, mortality at 30 days from admission, spending through 90 days from admission, and functional status as measured by days spent living in the community after discharge. RESULTS: In the final sample of 153 272 patients, 88 386 (57.7%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 78.8 (10.4) years. Patients cared for at telestroke hospitals had higher rates of reperfusion treatment compared with those cared for at control hospitals (6.8% vs 6.0%; difference, 0.78 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.54-1.03; P

This cohort study examines trends in the use of telemedicine and in-person outpatient visits in 2020 among a national sample of 16.7 million individuals with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the use of and demand for telehealth services. Objective Here, we describe the utilization of telehealth services provided by Doctor On Demand, Inc., a well-known telehealth company in the United States, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explore how the number of virtual visits, reasons for visits, and patients served changed over time. Methods We reported data as a percentage change from the baseline week during 2 distinct time periods: February-June 2019 and February-June 2020 based on 4 categories of visits: respiratory illness, unscheduled behavioral health, scheduled behavioral health, and chronic illness. Results In 2020, the total visit volume increased considerably from March through April 7, 2020 (59% above the baseline) and then declined through the week of June 2 (15% above the baseline). Visits for respiratory illnesses increased through the week of March 24 (30% above the baseline) and then steadily declined through the week of June 2 (65% below the baseline). Higher relative increases were observed for unscheduled behavioral health and chronic illness visits through April (109% and 131% above the baseline, respectively) before a decline through the week of June 2 (69% and 37% above the baseline, respectively). Increases in visit volume among rural residents were slightly higher than those among urban residents (peak at 64% vs 58% above the baseline, respectively). Conclusions Although this telehealth service provider observed a substantial increase in the volume of visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is interesting to note that this growth was not fueled by COVID-19 concerns but by visits for behavioral health and chronic illness. Telehealth services may play a role as a “safety valve” for patients who have difficulty accessing care during a public health emergency.

OBJECTIVE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many psychiatrists have rapidly transitioned to telemedicine. A qualitative study was conducted to understand how this dramatic change in delivery has impacted care, including how telemedicine was provided by psychiatrists, barriers encountered, and plans for the future. The aim was to inform the ongoing COVID-19 response and pass on lessons learned to psychiatrists who are starting to offer telemedicine. METHODS: From March 31-April 9, 2020, 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with outpatient psychiatrists practicing in states with significant early COVID-19 activity. Inductive and deductive approaches were used to develop interview summaries, and a matrix analysis was conducted to identify and refine themes. RESULTS: At the time of the interviews, all psychiatrists had been using telemedicine for 2–4 weeks. Telemedicine encompassed video visits, phone visits, or some combination of the two modalities. Although many continued to prefer in-person care and planned to return to in-person care after the pandemic, psychiatrists had largely positive perceptions of the transition. However, several noted challenges such as decreased clinical data for assessment, diminished patient privacy, and increased distractions in the home setting that impacted the quality of provider-patient interactions. Several psychiatrists also pointed that their disadvantaged patients lacked reliable access to a smart phone or computer as well as the Internet. Participants identified a number of promising strategies that helped them improve the quality of telemedicine visits. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has driven a dramatic shift in how psychiatrists deliver care. Findings highlight that although psychiatrists express some concerns about the quality of these encounters, the transition has been largely positive for both patients and physicians.

Importance Over the last decade or so, there have been substantial investments in the development of stroke systems of care to improve access and quality of care in rural communities. Whether these have narrowed rural-urban disparities in care is unclear. Objective To describe trends among rural and urban patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack in the type of health care centers to which patients were admitted, what care was provided, and the outcomes patients experienced. Design, Setting, and Participants This descriptive observational study included 100% claims for beneficiaries of traditional fee-for-service Medicare from 2008 through 2017. All rural and urban areas in the US were included, defined by whether a beneficiary’s residential zip code was in a metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area. All admissions in the US among patients with traditional Medicare who had a transient ischemic attack or acute stroke (N = 4.01 million) were eligible to be included in this study. Admissions for beneficiaries with end-stage kidney disease (n = 85 927 [2.14%]), beneficiaries with unidentified Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes (n = 12 797 [0.32%]), and beneficiaries not continuously enrolled in traditional Medicare in the 12 months before and 3 months after their admission (n = 442 963 [11.0%]) were excluded. Exposures Residence in an urban or rural area; admission to a hospital with a transient ischemic attack or acute stroke. Main Outcomes and Measures Discharge from a certified stroke center, receiving a neurology consultation during admission, treatment with alteplase, days institutionalized, and 90-day mortality. Results The final sample included 3.47 million admissions from 2008 through 2017. In this sample, 2.01 million patients (58.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 78.6 (10.5) years. In 2008, 24 681 patients (25.2%) and 161 217 patients (60.6%) in rural and urban areas, respectively, were cared for at a certified stroke center (disparity, −35.4%). By 2017, this disparity was −26.6%, having narrowed by 8.7 percentage points (95% CI, 6.6-10.8 percentage points). There was also narrowing in the rural-urban disparity in neurologist evaluation during admission (6.3% [95% CI, 4.2%-8.4%]). However, the rural-urban disparity widened or was similar with regard to receiving alteplase (0.5% [95% CI, 0.1%-0.8%]), mean days in an institution from admission (0.5 [95% CI, 0.2-0.8] days), and mortality at 90 days (0.3% [95% CI, −0.02% to 0.6%]), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance In the last decade, care for rural residents with acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack has shifted to certified stroke centers and now more likely includes neurologist input. However, disparities in access to treatments, such as alteplase, and outcomes persist, highlighting that work still is needed to extend improvements in stroke care to all US residents.

Objective Live interactive telemedicine is increasingly covered by state Medicaid programs, but whether telemedicine is improving equity in utilization of subspecialty care is not known. We examined patterns of telemedicine use for outpatient pediatric subspecialty care within the state Medicaid programs. Methods We identified children ≤17 years old in 2014 Medicaid Analysis eXtract data for 12 states. We identified telemedicine-using and telemedicine-nonusing medical and surgical subspecialists. Among children cared for by telemedicine-using subspecialists, we assessed child and subspecialist characteristics associated with any telemedicine visit using logistic regression with subspecialist-level random effects. Among children cared for by telemedicine-using and nonusing subspecialists, we compared visit rates across child characteristics by assessing negative binomial regression interaction terms. Results Of 12,237,770 pediatric Medicaid beneficiaries, 2,051,690 (16.8%) had ≥1 subspecialist visit. Of 42,695 subspecialists identified, 146 (0.3%) had ≥1 telemedicine claim. Among children receiving care from telemedicine-using subspecialists, likelihood of any telemedicine use was increased for rural children (odds ratio [OR] 10.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.3–17.1 compared to large metropolitan referent group) and those >90 miles from the subspecialist (OR 13.4, 95% CI 10.2–17.7 compared to 0–30 mile referent group). Compared to children receiving care from telemedicine-nonusing subspecialists, matched children receiving care from telemedicine-using subspecialists had larger differences in visit rates by distance to care, county rurality, ZIP code median income, and child race/ethnicity (P Conclusions Children in rural communities and at distance to subspecialists had increased likelihood of telemedicine use. Use overall was low, and results indicated that early telemedicine policies and implementation did not close disparities in subspecialty visit rates by child geographic and sociodemographic characteristics.

Primary care is known to improve outcomes and lower health care costs, prompting recent U.S. policy efforts to expand its role. Nonetheless, there is early evidence of a decline in per capita primary care visit rates, and little is understood about what is contributing to the decline.To describe primary care provider (PCP) visit trends among adults enrolled with a large, national, commercial insurer and assess factors underlying a potential decline in PCP visits.Descriptive repeated cross-sectional study using 100% deidentified claims data from the insurer, 2008-2016. A 5% claims sample was used for Poisson regression models to quantify visit trends.National, population-based.Adult health plan members aged 18 to 64 years.PCP visit rates per 100 member-years.In total, 142 million primary care visits among 94 million member-years were examined. Visits to PCPs declined by 24.2%, from 169.5 to 134.3 visits per 100 member-years, while the proportion of adults with no PCP visits in a given year rose from 38.1% to 46.4%. Rates of visits addressing low-acuity conditions decreased by 47.7% (95% CI, -48.1% to -47.3%). The decline was largest among the youngest adults (-27.6% [CI, -28.2% to -27.1%]), those without chronic conditions (-26.4% [CI, -26.7% to -26.1%]), and those living in the lowest-income areas (-31.4% [CI, -31.8% to -30.9%]). Out-of-pocket cost per problem-based visit rose by $9.4 (31.5%). Visit rates to specialists remained stable (-0.08% [CI, -0.56% to 0.40%]), and visits to alternative venues, such as urgent care clinics, increased by 46.9% (CI, 45.8% to 48.1%).Data were limited to a single commercial insurer and did not capture nonbilled clinician-patient interactions.Commercially insured adults have been visiting PCPs less often, and nearly one half had no PCP visits in a given year by 2016. Our results suggest that this decline may be explained by decreased real or perceived visit needs, financial deterrents, and use of alternative sources of care.None.

Although use of tele-mental health services is growing, there is limited research on how tele-mental health is deployed. This project aimed to describe how health centers use tele-mental health in conjunction with in-person care.The 2018 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator database was used to identify community mental health centers and federally qualified health centers with telehealth capabilities. Maximum diversity sampling was applied to recruit health center leaders to participate in semistructured interviews. Inductive and deductive approaches were used to develop site summaries, and a matrix analysis was conducted to identify and refine themes.Twenty health centers in 14 states participated. All health centers used telepsychiatry for diagnostic assessment and medication prescribing, and 10 also offered therapy via telehealth. Some health centers used their own staff to provide tele-mental health services, whereas others contracted with external providers. In most health centers, tele-mental health was used as an adjunct to in-person care. In choosing between tele-mental health and in-person care, health centers often considered patient preference, patient acuity, and insurance status or payer. Although most health centers planned to continue offering tele-mental health, participants noted drawbacks, including less patient engagement, challenges sharing information within the care team, and greater inefficiency.Tele-mental health is generally used as an adjunct to in-person care. The results of this study can inform policy makers and clinicians regarding the various delivery models that incorporate tele-mental health.

Background One underexplored driver of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) is patients’ prior care experiences. When patients receive antibiotics for an ARI, patients may attribute their clinical improvement to the antibiotics, regardless of their true benefit. These experiences, and experiences of family members, may drive whether patients seek care or request antibiotics for subsequent ARIs. Methods Using encounter data from a national United States insurer, we identified patients, We assessed whether receiving an antibiotic changes a patient’s future care-seeking behaviors. Patients who receive antibiotics for an acute respiratory illness (ARI) are more likely to seek care for subsequent ARIs and receive more antibiotics in the subsequent year.

Importance Primary care is the foundation of pediatric care. While policy interventions have focused on improving access and quality of primary care, trends in overall use of primary care among children have not been described. Objective To assess trends in primary care visit rates and out-of-pocket costs, to examine variation in these trends by patient and visit characteristics, and to assess shifts to alternative care options (eg, retail clinics, urgent care, and telemedicine). Design, Setting, and Participants Observational cohort study of claims data from 2008 to 2016 for children 17 years and younger covered by a large national commercial health plan. Visit rate per 100 child-years was determined for each year overall, by child and geographic characteristics, and by visit type (eg, primary diagnosis), and trends were assessed with a series of child-year Poisson models. Data were analyzed from November 2017 to September 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Visits to primary care and other settings. Results This cohort study included more than 71 million pediatric primary care visits over 29 million pediatric child-years (51% male in 2008 and 2016; 37% between 12-17 years in 2008 and 38% between 12-17 years in 2016). Unadjusted results for primary care visit rates per 100 child-years decreased from 259.6 in 2008 to 227.2 in 2016, yielding a regression-estimated change in primary care visits across the 9 years of −14.4% (95% CI, −15.0% to −13.9%; absolute change: −32.4 visits per 100 child-years). After controlling for shifts in demographics, the relative decrease was −12.8% (95% CI, −13.3% to −12.2%). Preventive care visits per 100 child-years increased from 74.9 in 2008 to 83.2 visits in 2016 (9.9% change in visit rate; 95% CI, 9.0%-10.9%; absolute change: 8.3 visits per 100 child-years), while problem-based visits per 100 child-years decreased from 184.7 in 2008 to 144.1 in 2016 (−24.1%; 95% CI, −24.6% to −23.5%; absolute change: −40.6 visits per 100 child-years). Visit rates decreased for all diagnostic groups except for the behavioral and psychiatric category. Out-of-pocket costs for problem-based primary care visits increased by 42% during the same period. Per 100 child-years, visits to other acute care venues increased from 21.3 to 27.6 (30.3%; 95% CI, 28.5% to 32.1%; absolute change: 6.3 visits per 100 child-years) and visits to specialists from 45.2 to 53.5 (16.4%; 95% CI, 14.8% to 18.0%, absolute change: 8.3 visits per 100 child-years). Conclusions and Relevance Primary care visit rates among commercially insured children decreased over the last decade. Increases in out-of-pocket costs and shifts to other venues appear to explain some of this decrease.

Key Points Question Was the COVID-19 pandemic associated with changes in mental health–related utilization for individuals with severe mental illness in the United States? Findings In this cohort study of more than 650 000 Medicare beneficiaries with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorders, there were statistically significant decreases in mental health–related outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient use as well as medication fills, particularly early in the pandemic, despite widespread use of telemedicine. Statistically significant differentially greater decreases in outpatient utilization were observed among individuals who were Black, had dual Medicare-Medicaid eligibility, or had disability. Meaning In this study, individuals with severe mental illness experienced substantial disruptions in care during the pandemic, and these disruptions were greater among disadvantaged populations., This cohort study examines changes in mental health care during the pandemic and the use of telemedicine in outpatient care among Medicare beneficiaries with severe mental illness., Importance Little is known about changes in care for individuals with severe mental illness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective To examine changes in mental health care during the pandemic and the use of telemedicine in outpatient care among Medicare beneficiaries with severe mental illness. Design, Setting, and Participants This population-based cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries (age ≥18 years) diagnosed with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-related disorders or bipolar I disorder. Care patterns during January to September 2020 for a cohort defined in 2019 were compared with those during January to September 2019 for a cohort defined in 2018. Exposures Start of COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, defined as week 12 of 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Use of mental health–related outpatient visits, emergency department visits, inpatient care, and oral prescription fills for antipsychotics and mood stabilizers during 4-week intervals. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined whether the pandemic was associated with differential changes in outpatient care across patient characteristics. Results The 2019 cohort of 686 214 individuals included 389 245 (53.8%) women, 114 073 (15.8%) Black and 526 301 (72.8%) White individuals, and 477 353 individuals (66.0%) younger than 65 years; the 2020 cohort of 723 045 individuals included 367 140 (53.5%) women, 106 699 (15.6%) Black and 497 885 (72.6%) White individuals, and 442 645 individuals (64.5%) younger than 65 years. Compared with 2019, there were large decreases during the pandemic’s first month (calendar weeks 12-15) in individuals with outpatient visits (265 169 [36.7%] vs 200 590 [29.2%]; 20.3% decrease), with antipsychotic and mood stabilizer medication prescription fills (216 468 [29.9%] vs 163 796 [23.9%]; 20.3% decrease), with emergency department visits (12 383 [1.7%] vs 8503 [1.2%]; 27.7% decrease), and with hospital admissions (11 564 [1.6%] vs 7912 [1.2%]; 27.9% decrease). By weeks 32 to 35 of 2020, utilization rebounded but remained lower than in 2019, ranging from a relative decrease of 2.5% (outpatient visits) to 12.9% (admissions). During the full pandemic period (weeks 12-39) in 2020, 1 556 403 of 2 743 553 outpatient visits (56.7%) were provided via telemedicine. In multivariable analyses, outpatient visit use during weeks 12 to 25 of 2020 was lower among those with disability (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.96), and during weeks 26 to 39 of 2020, it was lower among Black vs non-Hispanic White individuals (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) and those with dual Medicaid eligibility (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, despite greater use of telemedicine, individuals with severe mental illness experienced large disruptions in care early in the pandemic. These narrowed but persisted through September 2020. Disruptions were greater for several disadvantaged populations.

This cross-sectional study examines the use of telemedicine for buprenorphine inductions among individuals with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage during the temporary repeal of the Ryan Haight Act requirement of in-person evaluation before prescribing buprenorphine during to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Only a small proportion of individuals with a substance use disorder (SUD) receive treatment. The shortage of SUD providers, particularly in rural areas, is an important driver of this treatment gap. Telemedicine could be a means of expanding access to SUD treatment. However, several key regulatory and reimbursement barriers to greater tele-SUD use exist, and both the Congress and the states are considering or have recently passed legislation to address these barriers. To inform these efforts, we describe how tele-SUD is currently being used. Using 2010–2017 claims data from a large commercial insurer, we identify characteristics of tele-SUD users and examine how tele-SUD is being used in conjunction with in-person SUD care. Despite a rapid increase in tele-SUD over the period, we find low use rates overall, particularly relative to the growth in tele-mental health. Tele-SUD is primarily being used as a complement to in-person care and is disproportionately used by those with relatively severe SUD. Given the severity of the opioid epidemic, the low-rates of tele-SUD use that we observe represent a missed opportunity. As availability of tele-SUD is expanded, it will be important to monitor closely which tele-SUD delivery models are being deployed and their impact on access and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE Prompt initiation and intensification of antidiabetic therapy can delay or prevent complications from diabetes. We sought to understand the rates of and factors associated with the initiation and intensification of antidiabetic therapy among commercially insured patients in the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Using 2008–2015 commercial claims linked with laboratory and pharmacy data, we created an initiation cohort with no prior antidiabetic drug use and an HbA1c ≥8% (64 mmol/mol) and an intensification cohort of patients with an HbA1c ≥8% (64 mmol/mol) who were on a stable dose of one noninsulin diabetes drug. Using multivariable logistic regression, we determined the rates of and factors associated with initiation and intensification. In addition, we determined the percent of variation in treatment patterns explained by measurable patient factors. RESULTS In the initiation cohort (n = 9,799), 63% of patients received an antidiabetic drug within 6 months of the elevated HbA1c test. In the intensification cohort (n = 10,941), 82% had their existing antidiabetic therapy intensified within 6 months of the elevated HbA1c test. Higher HbA1c levels, lower generic drug copayments, and more frequent office visits were associated with higher rates of both initiation and intensification. Better patient adherence prior to the elevated HbA1c level, existing therapy with a second-generation antidiabetic drug, and lower doses of existing therapy were also associated with intensification. Patient factors explained 7.96% of the variation in initiation and 7.35% of the variation in intensification. CONCLUSIONS Approximately two-thirds of patients were newly initiated on antidiabetic therapy, and four-fifths of those already receiving antidiabetic therapy had it intensified within 6 months of an elevated HbA1c in a commercially insured population. Patient factors explain 7–8% of the variation in diabetes treatment patterns.

Dramatic reductions in outpatient visits and laboratory testing early in the COVID-19 pandemic1,2 raised concerns about gaps in diabetes management and glycemic control.3 We therefore compared weekly rates of diabetes-related outpatient visits, screening tests, medication fills, and patients’ hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in 2020 vs 2019 in a national cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Objectives Most data on telestroke utilization come from single academic hub-and-spoke telestroke networks. Our objective was to describe characteristics of telestroke consultations among a national sample of telestroke sites on one of the most commonly used common vendor platforms, prior to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Materials and methods A commercial telestroke vendor provided data on all telestroke consultations by two specialist provider groups from 2013-2019. Kendall's τ β nonparametric test was utilized to assess time trends. Generalized linear models were used to assess the association between hospital consult utilization and alteplase use adjusting for hospital characteristics. Results Among 67,736 telestroke consultations to 132 spoke sites over the study period, most occurred in the emergency department (90%) and for stroke indications (final clinical diagnoses: TIA 13%, ischemic stroke 39%, hemorrhagic stroke 2%, stroke mimics 46%). Stroke severity was low (median NIHSS 2, IQR 0–6). Alteplase was recommended for 23% of ischemic stroke patients. From 2013 to 2019, times from ED arrival to NIHSS, CT scan, imaging review, consult, and alteplase administration all decreased (p

The growing awareness of the wide variation in health care prices, increased availability of price data, and increased patient cost sharing are expected to drive patients to shop for lower-cost medical services. We conducted a nationally representative survey of 2,996 nonelderly US adults who had received medical care in the previous twelve months to assess how frequently patients are price shopping for care and the barriers they face in doing so. Only 13 percent of respondents who had some out-of-pocket spending in their last health care encounter had sought information about their expected spending before receiving care, and just 3 percent had compared costs across providers before receiving care. The low rates of price shopping do not appear to be driven by opposition to the idea: The majority of respondents believed that price shopping for care is important and did not believe that higher-cost providers were of higher quality. Common barriers to shopping included difficulty obtaining price information and a desire not to disrupt existing provider relationships.

Background Access to dermatologists is an ongoing concern for Medicaid enrollees. Understanding current use is a key step toward designing and implementing policies to improve access. Objective We sought to quantify how often Medicaid enrollees visit dermatologists and receive treatment for skin-related conditions compared with patients with other coverage or without health insurance. Methods We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of multiyear federal survey data (Medical Expenditure Panel Survey). The sample included Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents younger than 65 years from 2008 to 2012. Results In unadjusted comparisons, we found that 1.4% of Medicaid enrollees had an ambulatory visit to a dermatologist annually, compared with 1.2% of uninsured individuals and 5.5% of individuals with private coverage. In adjusted models, we found that health insurance source, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and geography are associated with the likelihood of having visits to a dermatologist. Compared with individuals with private coverage, Medicaid enrollees are less likely to receive a diagnosis for a skin condition by any provider and are less than half as likely to have skin-related diagnoses made by dermatologists. Limitations We have relatively few Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents for a subset of specific diagnoses. Conclusions Our findings emphasize the need for efforts to reduce disparities in access to dermatologists.

Background Given increased public reporting of the wide variation in hospital obstetric quality, we sought to understand how women incorporate quality measures into their selection of an obstetric hospital. Methods We surveyed 6141 women through Ovia Pregnancy, an application used by women to track their pregnancy. We used t tests and chi-square tests to compare response patterns by age, parity, and risk status. Results Most respondents (73.2%) emphasized their choice of obstetrician/midwife over their choice of hospital. Over half of respondents (55.1%) did not believe that their choice of hospital would affect their likelihood of having a cesarean delivery. While most respondents (74.9%) understood that quality of care varied across hospitals, few prioritized reported hospital quality metrics. Younger women and nulliparous women were more likely to be unfamiliar with quality metrics. When offered a choice, only 43.6% of respondents reported that they would be willing to travel 20 additional miles farther from their home to deliver at a hospital with a 20 percentage point lower cesarean delivery rate. Discussion Women's lack of interest in available quality metrics is driven by differences in how women and clinicians/researchers conceptualize obstetric quality. Quality metrics are reported at the hospital level, but women care more about their choice of obstetrician and the quality of their outpatient prenatal care. Additionally, many women do not believe that a hospital's quality score influences the care they will receive. Presentations of hospital quality data should more clearly convey how hospital-level characteristics can affect women's experiences, including the fact that their chosen obstetrician/midwife may not deliver their baby.

Objective To assess the impact of electronic health record (EHR) implementation on hospital finances. Materials and Methods We analyzed the impact of EHR implementation on bond ratings and net income from service to patients (NISP) at 32 hospitals that recently implemented a new EHR and a set of controls. Results After implementing an EHR, 7 hospitals had a bond downgrade, 7 had a bond upgrade, and 18 had no changes. There was no difference in the likelihood of bond rating changes or in changes to NISP following EHR go-live when compared to control hospitals. Discussion Most hospitals in our analysis saw no change in bond ratings following EHR go-live, with no significant differences observed between EHR implementation and control hospitals. There was also no apparent difference in NISP. Conclusions Implementation of an EHR did not appear to have an impact on bond ratings at the hospitals in our analysis.

A Study of Telecontraception Telecontraception is the provision of contraception prescriptions online as an alternative to traditional clinic visits. In this study, standardized patients were asked...

Under new U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rules, hospitals must post prices for all of their services as of 1 January 2019. This commentary discusses the current implementation of this...

This observational study of Medicare fee-for-service claims data evaluates demographic characteristics of psychiatrists who deliver telemental health visits in the Medicare population.

There is robust evidence that implementation of reference-based pricing (RBP) benefit design decreases spending. This paper investigates employer adoption of RBP as a strategy to improve the value of patients' healthcare choices, as well as facilitators and barriers to the adoption of RBP by employers.We conducted a qualitative study using 12 in-depth interviews with human resources executives or their representatives at large- or medium-sized self-insured employers.Interviews were conducted and recorded over the phone between March 2017 and May 2017. Interviewees were asked about their adoption of RBP and facilitators and barriers to adoption. We applied thematic analysis to the transcripts.Despite broad employer awareness of RBP's potential for cost savings, few employers are including RBP in their benefit design. The major barriers to RBP adoption were the complexity of RBP benefit design, concern that employees could face catastrophic out-of-pocket costs, lack of a business case for implementation, and concern that RBP could hurt the employer's competitiveness in the labor market. The few employers that have adopted RBP have implemented extensive, year-round employee education campaigns and invested in multipronged and proactive decision support to help employees navigate their choices.Unless several fundamental barriers are addressed, uptake of RBP will likely continue to be low. Our findings suggest that simplifying benefit design, providing employees protection against very high out-of-pocket costs, understanding which decision-support strategies are most effective, and enhancing the business case could facilitate wider employer adoption of RBP.

OBJECTIVES: Despite public reporting of wide variation in hospital cesarean delivery rates, few women access this information when deciding where to deliver. We hypothesized that making cesarean delivery rate data more easily accessible and understandable would increase the likelihood of women selecting a hospital with a low cesarean delivery rate. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 18,293 users of the Ovia Health mobile apps in 2016–2017. All enrollees were given an explanation of cesarean delivery rate data, and those randomized to the intervention group were also given an interactive tool that presented those data for the 10 closest hospitals with obstetric services. Our outcome measures were enrollees’ self-reported delivery hospital and views on cesarean delivery rates. METHODS: Intent-to-treat analysis using 2-sided Pearson’s χ(2) tests. RESULTS: There was no significant difference across the experimental groups in the proportion of women who selected hospitals with low cesarean delivery rates (7.0% control vs 6.8% intervention; P = .54). Women in the intervention group were more likely to believe that hospitals in their community had differing cesarean delivery rates (66.9% vs 55.9%; P

In 2016, Medicare implemented Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR), a national mandatory bundled-payment model for hip or knee replacement in randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas. Hospitals in such areas receive bonuses or pay penalties based on Medicare spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode (defined as the hospitalization plus 90 days after discharge).We conducted difference-in-differences analyses using Medicare claims from 2015 through 2017, encompassing the first 2 years of bundled payments in the CJR program. We evaluated hip- or knee-replacement episodes in 75 metropolitan statistical areas randomly assigned to mandatory participation in the CJR program (bundled-payment metropolitan statistical areas, hereafter referred to as "treatment" areas) as compared with those in 121 control areas, before and after implementation of the CJR model. The primary outcomes were institutional spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode (i.e., Medicare payments to institutions, primarily to hospitals and post-acute care facilities), rates of postsurgical complications, and the percentage of "high-risk" patients (i.e., patients for whom there was an elevated risk of spending - a measure of patient selection). Analyses were adjusted for the hospital and characteristics of the patients and procedures.From 2015 through 2017, there were 280,161 hip- or knee-replacement procedures in 803 hospitals in treatment areas and 377,278 procedures in 962 hospitals in control areas. After the initiation of the CJR model, there were greater decreases in institutional spending per joint-replacement episode in treatment areas than in control areas (differential change [i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the period before the CJR model], -$812, or a -3.1% differential decrease relative to the treatment-group baseline; P0.001). The differential reduction was driven largely by a 5.9% relative decrease in the percentage of episodes in which patients were discharged to post-acute care facilities. The CJR program did not have a significant differential effect on the composite rate of complications (P=0.67) or on the percentage of joint-replacement procedures performed in high-risk patients (P=0.81).In the first 2 years of the CJR program, there was a modest reduction in spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode, without an increase in rates of complications. (Funded by the Commonwealth Fund and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.).

This cross-sectional study investigates which community factors may be associated with the increase in telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic.