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.

Differences in Telehealth During COVID-19 Between Commercial and Medicaid Enrollees

Objectives: To compare how in-person evaluation and management (E&M) visits and telehealth use differed during the COVID-19 pandemic between commercially insured and Medicaid enrollees, and to assess how insurance plan type—fee-for-service (FFS) vs managed care (MC)—and enrollee characteristics contributed to these differences. Study Design: Retrospective cohort analysis of 2019 and 2020 data from the commercially insured California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California Medicaid program (Medi-Cal). Am J Manag Care. 2023;29(1):In Press _____ Takeaway Points * Increased use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about equitable access among lower-resourced populations, but few direct comparisons of telehealth use exist. * Compared with enrollees in a large, commercially insured managed care plan, Medicaid managed care enrollees had lower use of telehealth. * However, compared with enrollees in a large, commercially insured fee-for-service plan, Medicaid fee-for-service enrollees had higher use of telehealth. * Both insurer and plan type interact to affect uptake of telehealth, indicating heterogeneity that policy makers may wish to address when writing future telehealth policies. _____ The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a large shift to the provision of telehealth, due to benefits that include reduced risks of COVID-19 transmission and more convenient access to care. CalPERS enrollees select their insurance plan from several options, including a fully integrated health plan offered by Kaiser Permanente, several non-Kaiser health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, and preferred provider organization (PPO) plans.

Differences in telehealth during COVID-19 between commercial and Medicaid enrollees.

OBJECTIVES: To compare how in-person evaluation and management (E&M) visits and telehealth use differed during the COVID-19 pandemic between commercially insured and Medicaid enrollees, and to assess how insurance plan type-fee-for-service (FFS) vs managed care (MC)-and enrollee characteristics contributed to these differences. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of 2019 and 2020 data from the commercially insured California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California Medicaid program (Medi-Cal). METHODS: We conducted unadjusted comparisons of per capita E&M visits and the share of visits conducted via telehealth by payer (CalPERS vs Medi-Cal) and plan type (FFS vs MC). We estimated linear regressions of telehealth use that adjusted for patient demographics, rurality, and internet access. Among Medi-Cal enrollees, we examined telehealth use differences based on race, language, and citizenship status. RESULTS: Regression-adjusted share of telehealth visits as a proportion of all E&M visits was 22.6% for CalPERS FFS patients (the reference group), 38.2% for Medi-Cal FFS patients, 46.0% for Medi-Cal MC patients, and 53.5% for CalPERS MC patients. Among Medi-Cal enrollees, telehealth use as a share of all E&M visits was higher among Spanish speakers, female enrollees, and rural enrollees. Across most demographic characteristics, Medi-Cal patients enrolled in FFS were less likely to receive telehealth compared with those enrolled in MC. CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, California MC enrollees had higher rates of telehealth use compared with FFS enrollees, regardless of insurer. Among FFS enrollees, those enrolled in Medicaid had higher rates of telehealth use compared with those insured by CalPERS. Telehealth policies should be aware of this heterogeneity, as well as its implications for equity of telehealth access.

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.

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.

Availability of Outpatient Telemental Health Services in the United States at the Outset of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused dramatic changes in everyday life, a major concern is whether patients have adequate access to mental health care despite shelter-in-place ordinances, school closures, and social distancing practices. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to examine the availability of telehealth services at outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the United States at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify facility-level characteristics and state-level policies associated with the availability. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: All outpatient mental health treatment facilities (N=8860) listed in the Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration on April 16, 2020. MEASURES: Primary outcome is whether an outpatient mental health treatment facility reported offering telehealth services. RESULTS: Approximately 43% of outpatient mental health facilities in the United States reported telehealth availability at the outset of the pandemic. Facilities located in the United States South and nonmetropolitan counties were more likely to offer services, as were facilities with public sector ownership, those providing care for both children and adults, and those accepting Medicaid as a form of payment. Outpatient mental health treatment facilities located in states with state-wide shelter-in-place laws were less likely to offer telehealth, as well as facilities in counties with more COVID-19 cases per 10,000 population. CONCLUSIONS: At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer than half of outpatient mental health treatment facilities were providing telehealth services. Our results suggest that additional policies to promote telehealth may be warranted to increase availability over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.