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.

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.

Receipt of Out-of-State Telemedicine Visits Among Medicare Beneficiaries During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Early 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. Objective: To describe out-of-state telemedicine use during the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of telemedicine visits included all patients with traditional Medicare from January through June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Telemedicine visits from January through June 2021 where the patient's home address and the physician's practice address were in different states. Results: In 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 Relevance: The 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.

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.

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.

Suddenly Becoming a "Virtual Doctor": Experiences of Psychiatrists Transitioning to Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many psychiatrists have rapidly transitioned to telemedicine. This qualitative study sought to understand how this dramatic change in delivery has affected mental health care, including modes of telemedicine psychiatrists used, barriers encountered, and future plans. 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 to April 9, 2020, semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 outpatient psychiatrists practicing in five U.S. 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 20 psychiatrists had been using telemedicine for 2-4 weeks. Telemedicine encompassed video visits, phone visits, or both. Although many continued to prefer in-person care and planned to return to it after the pandemic, psychiatrists largely perceived the transition positively. However, several noted challenges affecting the quality of provider-patient interactions, such as decreased clinical data for assessment, diminished patient privacy, and increased distractions in the patient's home setting. Several psychiatrists noted that their disadvantaged patients lacked reliable access to a smartphone, computer, or the Internet. Participants identified several strategies that helped them improve telemedicine visit quality. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has driven a dramatic shift in how psychiatrists deliver care. Findings highlight that although psychiatrists expressed some concerns about the quality of these encounters, the transition has been largely positive for both patients and physicians.

Variation In Telemedicine Use And Outpatient Care During The COVID-19 Pandemic In The United States.

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.

How to Mitigate the Mental Health Care Consequences of the COVID-19 Financial Crisis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to record unemployment claims and a weakened U.S. economy. This column reviews results of past research to examine how a recession might affect behavioral health and the treatment of mental and substance use disorders and suggests potential policy solutions. Despite increases in suicide and substance use, losses in employment-related health insurance could dampen treatment seeking. Federal, state, and local officials should be vigilant regarding suicide prevention. Individuals who lose employee insurance coverage should be protected through insurance marketplaces and Medicaid outreach and enrollment. Public and private coverage of telehealth, which has already been expanded, should continue beyond the pandemic. Federal support for community behavioral health organizations should continue to offset state and local budget cuts and ensure provision of needed treatment. The capacity of social services should be expanded as well as systems that facilitate client connection to social services.

Treatment of opioid use disorder during COVID-19: Experiences of clinicians transitioning to telemedicine.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed care delivery for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD); however, little is known about the experiences of front-line clinicians in the transition to telemedicine. This study described how, in the context of the early stages of the pandemic, clinicians used telemedicine for OUD in conjunction with in-person care, barriers encountered, and implications for quality of care. METHODS: In April 2020, we conducted semistructured interviews with clinicians waivered to prescribe buprenorphine. We used maximum variation sampling. We used standard qualitative analysis techniques, consisting of both inductive and deductive approaches, to identify and characterize themes. RESULTS: Eighteen clinicians representing 10 states participated. Nearly all interview participants were doing some telemedicine, and more than half were only doing telemedicine visits. Most participants reported changing their typical clinical care patterns to help patients remain at home and minimize exposure to COVID-19. Changes included waiving urine toxicology screening, sending patients home with a larger supply of OUD medications, and requiring fewer visits. Although several participants were serving new patients via telemedicine during the early weeks of the pandemic, others were not. Some clinicians identified positive impacts of telemedicine on the quality of their patient interactions, including increased access for patients. Others noted negative impacts including less structure and accountability, less information to inform clinical decision-making, challenges in establishing a connection, technological challenges, and shorter visits. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of the pandemic, buprenorphine prescribers quickly transitioned to providing telemedicine visits in high volume; nonetheless, there are still many unknowns, including the quality and safety of widespread use of telemedicine for OUD treatment.