Expansion of Telehealth Availability for Mental Health Care After State-Level Policy Changes From 2019 to 2022.

Importance: Although telehealth services expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, the association between state policies and telehealth availability has been insufficiently characterized. Objective: To investigate the associations between 4 state policies and telehealth availability at outpatient mental health treatment facilities throughout the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study measured whether mental health treatment facilities offered telehealth services each quarter from April 2019 through September 2022. The sample comprised facilities with outpatient services that were not part of the US Department of Veterans Affairs system. Four state policies were identified from 4 different sources. Data were analyzed in January 2023. Exposures: For each quarter, implementation of the following policies was indexed by state: (1) payment parity for telehealth services among private insurers; (2) authorization of audio-only telehealth services for Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beneficiaries; (3) participation in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC), permitting psychiatrists to provide telehealth services across state lines; and (4) participation in the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT), permitting clinical psychologists to provide telehealth services across state lines. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was the probability of a mental health treatment facility offering telehealth services in each quarter for each study year (2019-2022). Information on the facilities was obtained from the Mental Health and Addiction Treatment Tracking Repository based on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Behavioral Health Treatment Service Locator. Separate multivariable fixed-effects regression models were used to estimate the difference in the probability of offering telehealth services after vs before policy implementation, adjusting for characteristics of the facility and county in which the facility was located. Results: A total of 12 828 mental health treatment facilities were included. Overall, 88.1% of facilities offered telehealth services in September 2022 compared with 39.4% of facilities in April 2019. All 4 policies were associated with increased odds of telehealth availability: payment parity for telehealth services (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19), reimbursement for audio-only telehealth services (AOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.64-1.81), IMLC participation (AOR, 1.40, 95% CI, 1.24-1.59), and PSYPACT participation (AOR, 1.21, 95% CI, 1.12-1.31). Facilities that accepted Medicaid as a form of payment had lower odds of offering telehealth services (AOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) over the study period, as did facilities in counties with a higher proportion (>20%) of Black residents (AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68). Facilities in rural counties had higher odds of offering telehealth services (AOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.48-1.88). Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that 4 state policies that were introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with marked expansion of telehealth availability for mental health care at mental health treatment facilities throughout the US. Despite these policies, telehealth services were less likely to be offered in counties with a greater proportion of Black residents and in facilities that accepted Medicaid and CHIP.

Trends in Methadone Dispensing for Opioid Use Disorder After Medicare Payment Policy Changes.

Importance: A significant proportion of Medicare beneficiaries have a diagnosed opioid use disorder (OUD). Methadone and buprenorphine are both effective medications for the treatment of OUD (MOUDs); however, Medicare did not cover methadone until 2020. Objective: To examine trends in methadone and buprenorphine dispensing among Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees after 2 policy changes in 2020 related to methadone access. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of temporal trends in methadone and buprenorphine treatment dispensing assessed MA beneficiary claims from January 1, 2019, through March 31, 2022, captured by Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart. Of 9 870 791 MA enrollees included in the database, 39 252 had at least 1 claim for methadone, buprenorphine, or both during the study period. All available MA enrollees were included. Subanalyses by age and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid status were conducted. Exposures: Study exposures were (1) the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare bundled payment reimbursement policy for OUD treatment and (2) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and CMS Medicare policies designed to facilitate access to treatment for OUD, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Study outcomes were trends in methadone and buprenorphine dispensing by beneficiary characteristics. National methadone and buprenorphine dispensing rates were calculated as claims-based dispensing rates per 1000 MA enrollees. Results: Among the 39 252 MA enrollees with at least 1 MOUD dispensing claim (mean age, 58.6 [95% CI, 58.57-58.62] years; 45.9% female), 195 196 methadone claims and 540 564 buprenorphine pharmacy claims were identified, for a total of 735 760 dispensing claims. The methadone dispensing rate for MA enrollees was 0 in 2019 because the policy did not allow any payment until 2020. Claims rates per 1000 MA enrollees were low initially, increasing from 0.98 in the first quarter of 2020 to 4.71 in the first quarter of 2022. Increases were primarily associated with dually eligible beneficiaries and beneficiaries younger than 65 years. National buprenorphine dispensing rates were 4.64 per 1000 enrollees in quarter 1 of 2019, increasing to 7.45 per 1000 enrollees in quarter 1 of 2022. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that methadone dispensing increased among Medicare beneficiaries after the policy changes. Rates of buprenorphine dispensing did not provide evidence that beneficiaries substituted buprenorphine for methadone. The 2 new CMS policies represent an important first step in increasing access to MOUD treatment for Medicare beneficiaries.

Mental Health Service Utilization Rates Among Commercially Insured Adults in the US During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with an elevated prevalence of mental health conditions and disrupted mental health care throughout the US. Objective: To examine mental health service use among US adults from January through December 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used county-level service utilization data from a national US database of commercial medical claims from adults (age >18 years) from January 5 to December 21, 2020. All analyses were conducted in April and May 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Per-week use of mental health services per 10 000 beneficiaries was calculated for 5 psychiatric diagnostic categories: major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, adjustment disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Changes in service utilization rates following the declaration of a national public health emergency on March 13, 2020, were examined overall and by service modality (in-person vs telehealth), diagnostic category, patient sex, and age group. Results: The study included 5 142 577 commercially insured adults. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with more than a 50% decline in in-person mental health care service utilization rates. At baseline, there was a mean (SD) of 11.66 (118.00) weekly beneficiaries receiving services for MDD per 10 000 enrollees; this declined by 6.44 weekly beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees (ß, -6.44; 95% CI, -8.33 to -4.54). For other disorders, these rates were as follows: anxiety disorders (mean [SD] baseline, 12.24 [129.40] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, -5.28; 95% CI, -7.50 to -3.05), bipolar disorder (mean [SD] baseline, 3.32 [60.39] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, -1.81; 95% CI, -2.75 to -0.87), adjustment disorders (mean [SD] baseline, 12.14 [129.94] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, -6.78; 95% CI, -8.51 to -5.04), and PTSD (mean [SD] baseline, 4.93 [114.23] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, -2.00; 95% CI, -3.98 to -0.02). Over the same period, there was a 16- to 20-fold increase in telehealth service utilization; the rate of increase was lowest for bipolar disorder (mean [SD] baseline, 0.13 [16.72] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.04-1.76) and highest for anxiety disorders (mean [SD] baseline, 0.20 [9.28] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, 9.12; 95% CI, 7.32-10.92). When combining in-person and telehealth service utilization rates, an overall increase in care for MDD, anxiety, and adjustment disorders was observed over the period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of US adults, we found that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a rapid increase in telehealth services for mental health conditions, offsetting a sharp decline in in-person care and generating overall higher service utilization rates for several mental health conditions compared with prepandemic levels.

Availability and Accessibility of Mental Health Services in New York City.

Mental health services are critical components of public health infrastructure that provide essential supports to people living with psychiatric disorders. In a typical year, about 20 percent of people will have a psychiatric disorder, and about 5 percent will experience serious psychological distress, indicating a potentially serious mental illness. Nationally, the use of mental health services is low, and the use of care is not equitably distributed. In the United States as a whole and in New York City (NYC), non-Hispanic white individuals are more likely to use mental health services than non-Hispanic black individuals or Hispanic individuals. The challenges of ensuring the availability of mental health services for all groups in NYC are particularly acute, given the size of the population and its diversity in income, culture, ethnicity, and language. Adding to these underlying challenges, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted established patterns of care. To advance policy strategy for addressing gaps in the mental health services system, RAND researchers investigate the availability and accessibility of mental health services in NYC. The RAND team used two complementary approaches to address these issues. First, the team conducted interviews with a broad group of professionals and patients in the mental health system to identify barriers to care and potential strategies for improving access and availability. Second, the team investigated geographic variations in the availability of mental health services by compiling and mapping data on the locations and service characteristics of mental health treatment facilities in NYC.

Spatial modeling of vaccine deserts as barriers to controlling SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine distribution is at risk of further propagating the inequities of COVID-19, which in the United States (US) has disproportionately impacted the elderly, people of color, and the medically vulnerable. We sought to measure if the disparities seen in the geographic distribution of other COVID-19 healthcare resources were also present during the initial rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Using a comprehensive COVID-19 vaccine database (VaccineFinder), we built an empirically parameterized spatial model of access to essential resources that incorporated vaccine supply, time-willing-to-travel for vaccination, and previous vaccination across the US. We then identified vaccine deserts-US Census tracts with localized, geographic barriers to vaccine-associated herd immunity. We link our model results with Census data and two high-resolution surveys to understand the distribution and determinates of spatially accessibility to the COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: We find that in early 2021, vaccine deserts were home to over 30 million people, >10% of the US population. Vaccine deserts were concentrated in rural locations and communities with a higher percentage of medically vulnerable populations. We also find that in locations of similar urbanicity, early vaccination distribution disadvantaged neighborhoods with more people of color and older aged residents. CONCLUSION: Given sufficient vaccine supply, data-driven vaccine distribution to vaccine deserts may improve immunization rates and help control COVID-19.

COVID-19 has affected the elderly, people of color, and individuals with chronic illnesses more than the general population. Large barriers to accessing the COVID-19 vaccine could make this problem worse. We used a website called VaccineFinder, which has information on the location of most COVID-19 vaccine doses in the US, to measure vaccine accessibility in early 2021. We then identified vaccine deserts, defined as small US regions with poor access to the COVID-19 vaccine. We found that over 10% of the US lived in a vaccine desert. Overall, we found that vaccines were less available to people in rural areas, people of color, and individuals with chronic illnesses. It will be important to reverse this pattern and ensure enough vaccines are sent to these communities to help reduce the spread of COVID-19.

The association of strained ICU capacity with hospital patient racial and ethnic composition and federal relief during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the association between strained intensive care unit (ICU) capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and hospital racial and ethnic patient composition, federal pandemic relief, and other hospital characteristics. DATA SOURCES: We used government data on hospital capacity during the pandemic and Provider Relief Fund (PRF) allocations, Medicare claims and enrollment data, hospital cost reports, and Social Vulnerability Index data. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted cross-sectional bivariate analyses relating strained capacity and PRF award per hospital bed with hospital patient composition and other characteristics, with and without adjustment for hospital referral region (HRR). DATA COLLECTION: We linked PRF data to CMS Certification Numbers based on hospital name and location. We used measures of racial and ethnic composition generated from Medicare claims and enrollment data. Our sample period includes the weeks of September 18, 2020 through November 5, 2021, and we restricted our analysis to short-term, general hospitals with at least one intensive care unit (ICU) bed. We defined "ICU strain share" as the proportion of ICU days occurring while a given hospital had an ICU occupancy rate ≥ 90%. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After adjusting for HRR, hospitals in the top tercile of Black patient shares had higher ICU strain shares than did hospitals in the bottom tercile (30% vs. 22%, p < 0.05) and received greater PRF amounts per bed ($118,864 vs. $92,407, p < 0.05). Having high versus low ICU occupancy relative to pre-pandemic capacity was associated with a modest increase in PRF amounts per bed after adjusting for HRR ($107,319 vs. $96,627, p < 0.05), but there were no statistically significant differences when comparing hospitals with high versus low ICU occupancy relative to contemporaneous capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with large Black patient shares experienced greater strain during the pandemic. Although these hospitals received more federal relief, funding was not targeted overall toward hospitals with high ICU occupancy rates.

Job loss and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal Analysis from residents in nine predominantly African American low-income neighborhoods.

While psychological distress is a common sequelae of job loss, how that relationship continued during the COVID-19 pandemic is unclear, for example, given higher health risk to working due to disease exposure. This paper examines changes in psychological distress depending on job loss among a cohort of randomly selected residents living in nine predominantly African American low-income neighborhoods in Pittsburgh PA across four waves between 2013 and 2020. Between 2013 and 2016, we found an increase in psychological distress after job loss in line with the literature. In contrast, between 2018 and 2020 we found change in psychological distress did not differ by employment loss. However, residents who had financial concerns and lost their jobs had the largest increases in psychological distress, while residents who did not have serious financial concerns-potentially due to public assistance-but experienced job loss had no increase in distress, a better outcome even than those that retained their jobs. Using partial identification, we find job loss during the pandemic decreased psychological distress for those without serious financial concerns. This has important policy implications for how high-risk persons within low-income communities are identified and supported, as well as what type of public assistance may help.

US Health Care Workforce Changes During the First and Second Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This article quantifies changes in employment and average wages of employees of 6 key health care organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Examining the impact of employment status on sleep quality during the COVID-19 pandemic in two low-income neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, PA.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: African Americans have faced disproportionate socioeconomic and health consequences associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study examines employment and its association with sleep quality during the initial months of the pandemic in a low-income, predominantly African American adult sample. METHODS: In the early months of COVID-19 (March to May 2020), we administered a survey to an ongoing, longitudinal cohort of older adults to assess the impact of COVID-related changes in employment on self-reported sleep quality (N = 460; 93.9% African American). Participants had prior sleep quality assessed in 2018 and a subset also had sleep quality assessed in 2013 and 2016. Primary analyses focused on the prevalence of poor sleep quality and changes in sleep quality between 2018 and 2020, according to employment status. Financial strain and prior income were assessed as moderators of the association between employment status and sleep quality. We plotted trend lines showing sleep quality from 2013 to 2020 in a subset (n = 339) with all four waves of sleep data available. RESULTS: All participants experienced increases in poor sleep quality between 2018 and 2020, with no statistical differences between the employment groups. However, we found some evidence of moderation by financial strain and income. The trend analysis demonstrated increases in poor sleep quality primarily between 2018 and 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep quality worsened during the pandemic among low-income African American adults. Policies to support the financially vulnerable and marginalized populations could benefit sleep quality.

US Health Care Workforce Changes During the First and Second Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic

This article quantifies changes in employment and average wages of employees of 6 key health care organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and policy response on health care utilization: Evidence from county-level medical claims and cellphone data.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced federal, state, and local policymakers to respond by legislating, enacting, and enforcing social distancing policies. However, the impact of these policies on healthcare utilization in the United States has been largely unexplored. We examine the impact of county-level shelter in place ordinances on healthcare utilization using two unique datasets-employer-sponsored insurance for over 6 million people in the US and cell phone location data. We find that introduction of these policies was associated with reductions in the use of preventive care, elective care, and the number of weekly visits to physician offices, hospitals and other health care-related industries. However, controlling for county-level exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic as a way to account for the endogenous nature of policy implementation reduces the impact of these policies. Our results imply that while social distancing policies do lead to reductions in healthcare utilization, much of these reductions would have occurred even in the absence of these policies.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Policy Responses on Excess Mortality

As a way of slowing COVID-19 transmission, many countries and U.S. states implemented shelter-in-place (SIP) policies. However, the effects of SIP policies on public health are a priori ambiguous as they might have unintended adverse effects on health. The effect of SIP policies on COVID-19 transmission and physical mobility is mixed. To understand the net effects of SIP policies, we measure the change in excess deaths following the implementation of SIP policies in 43 countries and all U.S. states. We use an event study framework to quantify changes in the number of excess deaths after the implementation of a SIP policy. We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases. The increase in excess mortality is statistically significant in the immediate weeks following SIP implementation for the international comparison only and occurs despite the fact that there was a decline in the number of excess deaths prior to the implementation of the policy. At the U.S. state-level, excess mortality increases in the immediate weeks following SIP introduction and then trends below zero following 20 weeks of SIP implementation. We failed to find that countries or U.S. states that implemented SIP policies earlier, and in which SIP policies had longer to operate, had lower excess deaths than countries/U.S. states that were slower to implement SIP policies. We also failed to observe differences in excess death trends before and after the implementation of SIP policies based on pre-SIP COVID-19 death rates.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Policy Response on Health Care Utilization: Evidence from County-level Medical Claims and Cellphone data

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced federal, state and local policymakers to respond by legislating, enacting, and enforcing social distancing policies. However, the impact of these policies on healthcare utilization in the United States has been largely unexplored. We examine the impact of county-level shelter in place ordinances on healthcare utilization using two unique datasets—employer-sponsored insurance for over 6 million people in the US and cell phone location data. We find that introduction of these policies was associated with reductions in the use of preventive care, elective care, and the number of weekly visits to physician offices and hospitals. However, controlling for county-level exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic reduces the impact of these policies. Our results imply that while social distancing policies do lead to reductions in healthcare utilization, much of these reductions would have occurred even in the absence of these policies.

Back to School: The Effect of School Visits During COVID-19 on COVID-19 Transmission

Schools across the United States and the world have been closed in an effort to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. However, the effect of school closure on COVID-19 transmission remains unclear. We estimate the causal effect of changes in the number of weekly visits to schools on COVID-19 transmission using a triple difference approach. In particular, we measure the effect of changes in county-level visits to schools on changes in COVID-19 diagnoses for households with school-age children relative to changes in COVID-19 diagnoses for households without school-age children. We use a data set from the first 46 weeks of 2020 with 130 million household-week level observations that includes COVID-19 diagnoses merged to school visit tracking data from millions of mobile phones. We find that increases in county-level in-person visits to schools lead to an increase in COVID-19 diagnoses among households with children relative to households without school-age children. However, the effects are small in magnitude. A move from the 25th to the 75th percentile of county-level school visits translates to a 0.3 per 10,000 household increase in COVID-19 diagnoses. This change translates to a 3.2 percent relative increase. We find larger differences in low-income counties, in counties with higher COVID-19 prevalence, and at later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Association Between COVID-19 Relief Funds and Hospital Characteristics in the US.

Importance: In response to financial stress created by the reduction in care during the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals received financial assistance through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act program. To date, the allocation of CARES Act funding is not well understood. Objective: To examine the disbursement of the High-Impact Distribution CARES Act funds and the association between financial assistance and hospital-level financial resources prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Setting and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of US-based hospitals and health systems assesses the hospital characteristics associated with CARES Act funding with linear regression models using linked hospital and health system-level information on CARES Act funding with hospital characteristics from Hospital Cost Report data. Exposures: Hospital and health system CARES Act financial assistance. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital and health system affiliation, status, and financial health prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data analysis took place from December 2020 through June 2021. Results: The analysis included 952 hospital-level entities with an average payment of $33.6 million, most of which was received during the first payment round. Wide ranges existed in CARES Act funding, with 24% of matched hospitals receiving less than $5 million in funding and 8% receiving more than $50 million. Academic-affiliated hospitals, hospitals with higher pre-COVID-19 assets and hospitals with higher COVID-19 cases received higher levels of funding, while critical access hospitals received lower levels of financial assistance. A 10% increase in hospital assets, endowment size, and COVID-19 cases was associated with 1.4% (95% CI, 0.8% to 2.0%; P = .003), 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1% to 0.3%; P < .001), and 3.5% (95% CI, 2.8% to 4.2%; P < .001) increases in CARES Act funding, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US hospitals and health systems, findings suggest that High-Impact Distribution CARES Act funds may have disproportionately gone to hospitals that were in a stronger financial situation prior to the pandemic compared with those that were not, but funds also went disproportionately to those that eventually had the most cases.

Telehealth Adoption by Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The study examined temporal and geographic trends in telehealth availability at U.S. behavioral health treatment facilities and risk factors for not offering telehealth. METHODS: Longitudinal data on 15,691 outpatient behavioral health treatment facilities were extracted daily from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator between January 20, 2020, and January 20, 2021. Facilities operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs were excluded. Bivariate analyses were used to assess trends in telehealth availability in 2020 and 2021. Multivariable regression analysis was used to examine facility- and county-level characteristics associated with telehealth availability in 2021. RESULTS: Telehealth availability increased by 77% from 2020 to 2021 for mental health treatment facilities and by 143% for substance use disorder treatment facilities. By January 2021, 68% of outpatient mental health facilities and 57% of substance use disorder treatment facilities in the sample were offering telehealth. Mental health and substance use disorder treatment facilities that did not accept Medicaid as a form of payment were less likely to offer telehealth in 2021, compared with facilities that accepted Medicaid. Mental health and substance use disorder treatment facilities that accepted private insurance were more likely to offer telehealth in 2021, compared with facilities that did not accept private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Although 2020 saw a dramatic increase in telehealth availability at behavioral health treatment facilities, 32% of mental health treatment facilities and 43% of substance use disorder treatment facilities did not offer telehealth in January 2021, nearly 1 year into the pandemic.