Appropriateness of Telemedicine Versus In-Person Care: A Qualitative Exploration of Psychiatrists' Decision Making.

OBJECTIVE: With widespread adoption of telemedicine in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, psychiatrists must determine which visits are best conducted via telemedicine versus in person. Although some telepsychiatry guidelines and best practices have been developed, the literature has not described how psychiatrists make decisions about offering different care modalities. The authors explored how psychiatrists decide whether telemedicine is appropriate for a given patient. METHODS: From June 25 to August 4, 2021, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with 20 outpatient psychiatrists. The authors used a critical incident technique and clinical vignettes to identify conscious and unconscious factors that influence psychiatrists' decision to offer telemedicine. Using inductive thematic analysis, the authors analyzed interview data. RESULTS: Psychiatrists perceived that most patients are good candidates for telemedicine visits in the context of hybrid care models. Patient preference and situational factors, such as access to private spaces, rather than any particular diagnosis or patient demographic characteristic, drove telemedicine versus in-person care. Psychiatrists described numerous factors affecting their decision to offer telemedicine, and they were driven to try telemedicine and adjust as needed to "meet patients where they are" and to improve engagement in care. Psychiatrists reported using telemedicine as a bargaining chip in negotiations with patients, leveraging the offer of telemedicine to improve treatment attendance and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: This detailed assessment of how psychiatrists choose different care modalities can inform clinical practice guidelines and reimbursement policies that often mandate in-person visits. The results show that psychiatrists did not perceive intermittent in-person visits as essential for high-quality care.

Telemental health for clinical assessment and treatment.

Telemental health-the use of videoconferencing or audio only (telephone) in mental health care-has accelerated tremendously since the start of the covid-19 pandemic. Meta-analyses have examined the reliability (ie, concordance) of assessment and the efficacy/effectiveness of telemental health compared with in-person care. Results indicate that telemental health assessment and clinical outcomes are similar compared with in-person care but there is much unexplained variability, as well as evidence that patient clinical and demographic characteristics can influence these findings. Further, gaps exist in the literature regarding specific patient populations (eg, psychotic disorders, children/adolescents), treatment modalities (eg, group therapy), audio only telemedicine, and hybrid care that mixes in-person with telemental health care. These gaps provide important directions for the next generation of telemental health research. Comprehensive clinical guidelines from mental health organizations are available to telemental health practitioners and focus on five content themes: legal and regulatory issues, clinical considerations, standard operating procedures and protocols, technical requirements, and considerations of specific populations and settings.

Telemedicine Use and Quality of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Little is known about the potential implications of the rapid transition to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Objective: To examine the association between telemedicine adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic and indicators of OUD treatment quality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed deidentified administrative claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Claims for telemedicine visits were included for both the prepandemic period (March 14, 2019, to March 13, 2020) and pandemic period (March 14, 2020, to March 13, 2021). Patients with OUD and continuous enrollment in either commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage plans were included. Clinicians who provided office-based OUD care were included and categorized into low, medium, or high telemedicine use groups. Patients were attributed to the clinician (and corresponding telemedicine use group) from whom they received a plurality of OUD visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 4 outcomes were all outpatient visits, OUD visits (in person vs telemedicine) within 90 days of an index visit, medications for OUD (MOUD) prescribing, and OUD-related clinical events (including drug overdose, inpatient detoxification and rehabilitation center stay, or injection drug use-related infections). Results: The analysis included 11 801 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.9 [15.7] years; 5902 males [50.0%]) who were treated by 1768 clinicians. Clinicians with low vs high telemedicine use conducted a mean (SD) of 2.1% (2.5%) vs 69.5% (18.6%) of their office visits virtually in the pandemic period. While telemedicine use for OUD increased significantly from the prepandemic to pandemic periods, total OUD visit volume (in person plus telemedicine) per patient episode remained stable among both high (2.6 to 2.7 visits per patient episode) and low (3.1 to 3.3 visits per patient episode) telemedicine use groups. In adjusted analyses comparing the prepandemic with pandemic periods, there was no differential change in MOUD initiation (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.19), MOUD days' supply (differential change in days' supply, -0.27; 95% CI, -1.84 to 1.30), or OUD-related clinical events (adjusted OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.24) among patients who were treated by clinicians in low vs high telemedicine use groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study revealed that clinical outcomes were similar among patients who were treated by clinicians with high and low telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that telemedicine is a comparable alternative to in-person OUD care. There was no evidence that telemedicine was associated with increased access to or improved quality of OUD treatment.

A cohort study examining changes in treatment patterns for alcohol use disorder among commercially insured adults in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: We know very little about how the pandemic impacted outpatient alcohol use disorder (AUD) care and the role of telemedicine. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Trends In Mental Health Care Delivery By Psychiatrists And Nurse Practitioners In Medicare, 2011-19.

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.

Association Between Telemedicine Use in Nonmetropolitan Counties and Quality of Care Received by Medicare Beneficiaries With Serious Mental Illness.

Importance: 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. Objective: 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. Design, Setting, and Participants: 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. Main Outcomes and Measures: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions and Relevance: 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.

Trends in Outpatient Telemedicine Utilization Among Rural Medicare Beneficiaries, 2010 to 2019.

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.

Disruptions in Care for Medicare Beneficiaries With Severe Mental Illness During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

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.

Clinicians' Perceptions of Rapid Scale-up of Telehealth Services in Outpatient Mental Health Treatment.

Background: Little is known about specialty mental health and/or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) clinicians' experiences transitioning from in-person to telehealth care, to treat a diagnostically diverse population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Survey of outpatient MH/SUD clinicians (psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers; N = 107) at a psychiatric hospital. Clinician satisfaction and experiences using telehealth across a variety of services (individual, group or family therapy, initial assessments, evaluation and management, and neuropsychological assessment) were assessed using a mixed-methods approach. Results: Across services, a majority agreed/strongly agreed that telehealth provided an opportunity to build rapport with patients (67-88%) and they could treat their patients' needs well (71-88%). The interest in continuing to use telehealth when in-person visits resume varied by type of service provided (50-71%). Group therapy and initial assessment were lowest (50% and 51%, respectively). Clinicians noted telehealth improved access to care for patients with logistical barriers, competing demands, mobility difficulties, and medical concerns; but was more challenging to care for patients with certain psychiatric characteristics (e.g., psychosis, paranoia, catatonia, high distractibility, and avoidance), high symptom severity, or who needed to improve social skills. Telehealth influenced the therapeutic process (e.g., observations of family dynamic, increased patient/clinician therapeutic alliance). Discussion and Conclusions: MH/SUD clinicians who quickly transitioned to telehealth care during the pandemic were largely satisfied with telehealth, but also identified challenges related to specific patient characteristics, or types of MH/SUD services. These observations warrant additional study to better delineate the role for an expanded use of telehealth postpandemic.

Initiating Opioid Use Disorder Medication via Telemedicine During COVID-19: Implications for Proposed Reforms to the Ryan Haight Act.

BACKGROUND: The Ryan Haight Act generally requires a clinician to conduct an in-person visit before prescribing an opioid use disorder (OUD) medication. This requirement has impeded use of telemedicine to expand OUD treatment, and many policymakers have called for its removal. During the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning March 16, 2020, the requirement was temporarily waived. It is unclear whether clinicians who treat OUD patients perceive telemedicine to be a safe and effective means of OUD medication initiation. OBJECTIVE: To understand clinician use of and comfort level with using telemedicine to initiate patients on medication for opioid use disorder. DESIGN: National survey administered electronically via WebMD/Medscape's online clinician panel in fall 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 602 clinicians (primary care providers, psychiatrists, nurse practitioners or certified nurse specialists, and physician assistants) participated in the survey. MAIN MEASURES: Frequency of video, audio-only, and in-person visits for medication initiation, comfort level with using video for new patient visits with OUD. KEY RESULTS: Clinicians varied substantially in their use of telemedicine for medication initiation. Approximately 25% used telemedicine for most initiations while 40% used only in-person visits. The majority (55.8%) expressed at least some discomfort with using telemedicine for treating new OUD patients, although clinicians with more OUD patients were less likely to express such discomfort. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that a permanent relaxation of the Ryan Haight requirement may not result in widespread adoption of telemedicine for OUD medication initiation without additional supports or incentives.

Use of telemedicine for opioid use disorder treatment - Perceptions and experiences of opioid use disorder clinicians.

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.

Patients' perceptions of telehealth services for outpatient treatment of substance use disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Disparities in outpatient visits for mental health and/or substance use disorders during the COVID surge and partial reopening in Massachusetts.

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in outpatient visits for mental health and/or substance use disorders (MH/SUD) in an integrated healthcare organization during the initial Massachusetts COVID-19 surge and partial state reopening. METHODS: Observational study of outpatient MH/SUD visits January 1st-June 30th, 2018-2020 by: 1) visit diagnosis group, 2) provider type, 3) patient race/ethnicity, 4) insurance, and 5) visit method (telemedicine vs. in-person). RESULTS: Each year, January-June 52,907-73,184 patients were seen for a MH/SUD visit. While non-MH/SUD visits declined during the surge relative to 2020 pre-pandemic (-38.2%), MH/SUD visits increased (9.1%)-concentrated in primary care (35.3%) and non-Hispanic Whites (10.5%). During the surge, MH visit volume increased 11.7% while SUD decreased 12.7%. During partial reopening, while MH visits returned to 2020 pre-pandemic levels, SUD visits declined 31.1%; MH/SUD visits decreased by Hispanics (-33.0%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (-24.6%), and among Medicaid (-19.4%) and Medicare enrollees (-20.9%). Telemedicine accounted for ~5% of MH/SUD visits pre-pandemic and 83.3%-83.5% since the surge. CONCLUSIONS: MH/SUD visit volume increased during the COVID surge and was supported by rapidly-scaled telemedicine. Despite this, widening diagnostic and racial/ethnic disparities in MH/SUD visit volume during the surge and reopening suggest additional barriers for these vulnerable populations, and warrant continued monitoring and research.