Insurers and policy makers have created health care price transparency websites to facilitate price shopping and reduce spending. However, price transparency tools to date have been plagued by low use. It is unclear whether this low use reflects a lack of interest or a lack of awareness. We launched a large online advertising campaign to increase consumers' awareness about insurer-specific negotiated price information available on New Hampshire's public price transparency website. Our campaign led to a more than 600 percent increase in visits to the website. However, in our analysis of health plan claims, this increased use of the website did not translate to increased use of lower-price providers. Our findings imply that the limited success to date of price transparency tools in reducing health care spending is driven by structural factors that limit consumers' ability to use health care price information as opposed to only a lack of awareness about price transparency tools.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The rapid scale-up of telehealth services for substance use disorders (SUDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique opportunity to investigate patient experiences with telehealth. This study examined patient perceptions of telehealth in an outpatient SUD treatment program offering individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy adults receiving SUD outpatient treatment were eligible to complete a 23-item online survey distributed by clinicians; 58 patients completed/partially completed the survey. Data were summarized with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Participants were predominately male, White, and well-educated. The majority (86.2%) were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the quality of telehealth care. "Very satisfied" ratings were highest for individual therapy (90%), followed by medication management (75%) and group therapy (58%). Top reasons for liking telehealth included the ability to do it from home (90%) and not needing to spend time commuting (83%). Top reasons for disliking telehealth were not connecting as well with other members in group therapy (28%) and the ability for telehealth to be interrupted at home or work (26%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth visits were a satisfactory treatment modality for most respondents receiving outpatient SUD care, especially those engaging in individual therapy. Challenges remain for telehealth group therapy. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first study examining patients' perceptions of telehealth for outpatient SUD treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic by treatment service type. Importantly, while many participants found telehealth more accessible than in-person treatment, there was variability with respect to the preferred mode of treatment delivery.

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.

Accessing primary care is often difficult for newly insured Medicaid beneficiaries. Tailored text messages may help patients navigate the health system and initiate care with a primary care physician. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of tailored text messages with newly enrolled Medicaid managed care beneficiaries. Text messages included education about the importance of primary care, reminders to obtain an appointment, and resources to help schedule an appointment. Within 120 days of enrollment, we examined completion of at least one primary care visit and use of the emergency department. Within 1 year of enrollment, we examined diagnosis of a chronic disease, receipt of preventive care, and use of the emergency department. 8432 beneficiaries (4201 texting group; 4231 control group) were randomized; mean age was 37 years and 24% were White. In the texting group, 31% engaged with text messages. In the texting vs control group after 120 days, there were no differences in having one or more primary care visits (44.9% vs. 45.2%; difference, -0.27%; p = 0.802) or emergency department use (16.2% vs. 16.0%; difference, 0.23%; p = 0.771). After 1 year, there were no differences in diagnosis of a chronic disease (29.0% vs. 27.8%; difference, 1.2%; p = 0.213) or appropriate preventive care (for example, diabetes screening: 14.1% vs. 13.4%; difference, 0.69%; p = 0.357), but emergency department use (32.7% vs. 30.2%; difference, 2.5%; p = 0.014) was greater in the texting group. Tailored text messages were ineffective in helping new Medicaid beneficiaries visit primary care within 120 days.

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 < .001) and lower 30-day mortality (13.1% vs 13.6%; difference, 0.50 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.17-0.83, P = .003). There were no differences in days spent living in the community following discharge or in spending. Increases in reperfusion treatment were largest in the lowest-volume hospitals, among rural residents, and among patients 85 years and older. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients with ischemic stroke treated at hospitals with telestroke capacity were more likely to receive reperfusion treatment and have lower 30-day mortality.

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.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has presented emergency departments (EDs) with many challenges to address the acute care needs of patients. Many EDs have leveraged telehealth to innovatively respond to these challenges. This review describes the landscape of telehealth initiatives in emergency care that have been described during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive, systematic review of the literature using PubMed, supplemented by a review of the gray literature (ie, non-peer reviewed), with input from subject matter experts to identify telehealth initiatives in emergency care during coronavirus disease 2019. We categorized types of telehealth use based on purpose and user characteristics. RESULTS: We included 27 papers from our review of the medical literature and another 8 sources from gray literature review. The vast majority of studies (32/35) were descriptive in nature, with the additional inclusion of 2 cohort studies and one randomized clinical trial. There were 5 categories of ED telehealth use during the pandemic: (1) pre-ED evaluation and screening, (2) within ED (including as a means of limiting staff and patient exposure and facilitating consultation with specialists), (3) post-ED discharge monitoring and treatment, (4) educating trainees and health care workers, and (5) coordinating resources and patient care. CONCLUSION: Telehealth has been used in a variety of manners during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, enabling innovation in emergency care delivery. The findings from this study can be used by institutions to consider how telehealth may address challenges in emergency care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and beyond. Because few studies included cost data and given the variability in institutional resources, how organizations implement telehealth programs will likely vary. Future work should further explore barriers and facilitators of innovation, and the impact on care delivery and patient outcomes.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Months after the declaration of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) national emergency, visits among children remained suppressed for unclear reasons, which we sought to understand by examining child visit rates. METHODS: Using de-identified claims data for children <18 years old from OptumLabs® Data Warehouse, a large commercial claims database, we compared monthly primary care visit and vaccination rates from January-October 2020 to January-October 2018 and 2019. Visit rates were analyzed by visit reason and by the month after (eg, month +1) the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration using a series of child-level Poisson regression models. RESULTS: There were 3.4, 3.4, and 3.1 million children in 2018, 2019, and 2020 cohorts, respectively. Compared to the same months in prior years, primary care visits in 2020 were 60% lower in month +1 (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.40, 99% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.40) and 17% lower in month +7 (IRR 0.83, 99% CI 0.83-0.83). Preventive visit rates were 53% lower in month +1 (IRR 0.47, 99% CI 0.47-0.47), but 8% higher than prior years in month +7 (IRR 1.08, 99% CI 1.08-1.08). Monthly rates of vaccine administration followed a similar pattern. Problem-focused visits remained 31% lower in month +7 (IRR 0.69, 99% CI 0.68-0.69), with notably fewer infection-related visits (acute respiratory tract infections IRR 0.37, 99% CI 0.36-0.37; gastroenteritis IRR 0.20, 99% CI 0.20-0.20). CONCLUSION: Seven months after the COVID-19 emergency declaration, receipt of pediatric care remained suppressed due to fewer problem-focused visits, with notably fewer infection-related visits. By October 2020, rates of preventive visits and vaccination exceeded rates in prior years.

There is substantial interest in using urgent care centers to decrease lower-acuity emergency department (ED) visits. Using 2008-19 insurance claims and enrollment data from a national managed care plan, we examined the association within ZIP codes between changes in rates of urgent care center visits and rates of lower-acuity ED visits. We found that although the entry of urgent care deterred lower-acuity ED visits, the impact was small. We estimate that thirty-seven additional urgent care center visits were associated with a reduction of a single lower-acuity ED visit. In addition, each $1,646 lower-acuity ED visit prevented was offset by a $6,327 increase in urgent care center costs. Therefore, despite a tenfold higher price per visit for EDs compared with urgent care centers, use of the centers increased net overall spending on lower-acuity care at EDs and urgent care centers.

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.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spurred a rapid rise in telemedicine, but it is unclear how use has varied by clinical and patient factors during the pandemic. We examined the variation in total outpatient visits and telemedicine use across patient demographics, specialties, and conditions in a database of 16.7 million commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees from January to June 2020. During the pandemic, 30.1 percent of all visits were provided via telemedicine, and the weekly number of visits increased twenty-three-fold compared with the prepandemic period. Telemedicine use was lower in communities with higher rates of poverty (31.9 percent versus 27.9 percent for the lowest and highest quartiles of poverty rate, respectively). Across specialties, the use of any telemedicine during the pandemic ranged from 68 percent of endocrinologists to 9 percent of ophthalmologists. Across common conditions, the percentage of visits provided during the pandemic via telemedicine ranged from 53 percent for depression to 3 percent for glaucoma. Higher rates of telemedicine use for common conditions were associated with smaller decreases in total weekly visits during the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in licensed substance use treatment facilities' adoption of telemedicine and how adoption varies across local factors, including county-level drug overdose rates, urbanicity measures, and state policy laws. METHODS: We analyzed data (2016-2019) from the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Facilities. Our main outcome was telemedicine use by a treatment facility. We also captured independent variables from other datasets, including estimated county-level drug poisoning deaths and state-level telemedicine policies. We estimated a multivariable logistic regression model to determine which facility characteristics were associated with offering telemedicine. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, an average of 12,334 treatment facilities were included. During this period, the unadjusted proportion of facilities offering telemedicine grew from 13.5% to 17.4% (p < 0.001). In adjusted models, rural location; offering multiple treatment settings; offering pharmacotherapy; and serving both adult and pediatric patients were associated with greater telemedicine adoption (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). DISCUSSION: Use of telemedicine is increasing steadily among substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities; however, uptake is uneven and relatively low. As such, telemedicine may be an underutilized tool to expand access to care for patients with SUDs.

This cross-sectional study uses data from the 2018 American Community Survey to assess disparities in digital access among Medicare beneficiaries by demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

This study describes the growth of telestroke capacity in US hospitals and compares the characteristics of the hospitals with and without telestroke capacity.