Use of and Attitudes About Telelactation Services among New Parents.

Background: We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey among new parents to explore use and acceptability of telelactation. Methods: Recruitment occurred between October 2021 and January 2022 on Ovia's parenting mobile phone application. Poststratification survey weights were used, and logistic and linear regression models estimated associations between demographics and telelactation use. Results: Among 1,617 respondents, 33.8% had at least one telelactation visit. Odds of any telelactation visit(s) were greater for parents who gave birth in 2021 versus 2019 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-2.25), insured by Medicaid (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.02-2.02), and younger parents (OR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.32-3.34). In total, 56.0% agreed that they would be comfortable breastfeeding over video to get help, and 27.6% agreed that lactation support over video is as good as in-person support. Conclusions: Telelactation is increasingly common and acceptable to many parents.

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.

Variation in patterns of telestroke usage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Early in the pandemic, there was a substantial increase in telestroke uptake among hospitals. The motivations for using telestroke during the pandemic might have been different than for hospitals that adopted telestroke previously. We compared stroke care at hospitals that adopted telestroke prior to the pandemic to care at hospitals that adopted telestroke during the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stroke episodes and telestroke use were identified in Medicare Fee-for-Service Data. Hospital and episode characteristics were compared between pre-pandemic (Jan. 2019-Mar. 2020) and pandemic (Apr. 2020-Dec. 2020) adopters. RESULTS: Hospital bed counts, critical access statuses, stroke volumes, clinical operating margins, shares of stroke care via telestroke, and vascular neurology consult rates did not differ significantly between pre-pandemic and pandemic-adopting hospitals. Hospitals that never adopted telestroke during the study period were more likely to be small critical access hospitals with low clinical operating margins. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to hospitals that adopted telestroke before the pandemic, hospitals that adopted telestroke during the pandemic were similar in characteristics and how they used telestroke.

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.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and attitudes among pregnant and postpartum parents.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy poses increased risks from COVID-19, including hospitalization and premature delivery. Yet pregnant individuals are less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccine. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake and reasons for delay or refusal among perinatal parents. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 1542 eligible parents who delivered between 2019 and 2021 were surveyed through the Ovia parenting app, which has a nationally representative user base. Adjusted and nationally weighted means were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression and survival models were used to examine uptake. RESULTS: At least 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine was received by 70% of the parents. Those with a bachelor's or graduate degree were significantly more likely to have received a vaccine relative to those with some college or less (adjusted odds ratio for bachelor's degree, 1.854; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.90; adjusted odds ratio for graduate degree, 2.833; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-4.75). Parents living in rural areas were significantly less likely to have received a vaccine relative to those living in urban areas (adjusted odds ratio for small city, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.86; adjusted odds ratio for rural area, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.89); 56% (281/502) of unvaccinated parents considered that the vaccine "was too new." Among those pregnant in 2021, 44% (258/576) received at least 1 dose, and 34% (195/576) reported that pregnancy had "no impact" on their vaccine decision. CONCLUSION: There was significant heterogeneity in vaccine uptake and attitudes toward vaccines during pregnancy by sociodemographics and over time. Public health experts need to consider and test more tailored approaches to reduce vaccine hesitancy in this population.

Variation in Patterns of Telestroke Usage during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objectives Early in the pandemic there was a substantial increase in telestroke uptake among hospitals. The motivations for using telestroke during the pandemic might be different than hospitals that adopted telestroke previously. We compared stroke care among hospitals that adopted telestroke prior to the pandemic to hospitals that adopted telestroke during the pandemic. Materials and Methods Stroke episodes and telestroke use were identified in Medicare Fee-for-Service Data. Hospital and episode characteristics were compared between pre-pandemic (Jan. 2019 – Mar. 2020) and pandemic (Apr. 2020 – Dec. 2020) adopters. Results Hospital bed counts, critical access status, stroke volumes, clinical operating margins, share of stroke care via telestroke, and vascular neurology consult rates did not differ significantly between pre-pandemic and pandemic-adopting hospitals. Hospitals that never adopted telestroke during the study period were more likely to be small critical access hospitals with low clinical operating margins. Conclusions Compared to hospitals that adopted telestroke before the pandemic, hospitals that adopted telestroke during the pandemic were similar in characteristics and how they used telestroke.

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.

Changes in Breastfeeding and Lactation Support Experiences During COVID.

Background: We surveyed parents who gave birth from 2019 to 2021 to examine changes in breastfeeding experiences and professional and lay breastfeeding support services due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We also examined racial and ethnic disparities in breastfeeding support. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional opt-in survey of 1,617 parents was administered on Ovia's parenting app in January 2022. Respondents were 18-45 years of age and delivered in one of three birth cohorts: August-December 2019, March-May 2020, or June-August 2021. We fit linear and logistic regression models wherein the outcomes were six breastfeeding support and experience measures, adjusting for birth cohort and respondent demographics. Results: Parents who gave birth in the early pandemic versus those in the prepandemic had reduced odds of interacting with lactation consultants (odds ratio [OR]: 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.90), attending breastfeeding classes (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.54-0.94), meeting breastfeeding goals (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.92), and reporting it was easy to get breastfeeding help (estimate: -0.36; 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.17). Birth cohort was not associated with use of donor milk or receipt of in-hospital help. The later pandemic cohort differed from the prepandemic cohort for one outcome: they were less likely to meet their breastfeeding goals (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48-0.95). There were racial and ethnic disparities in the use of multiple types of breastfeeding support. Although one-third of respondents felt that the pandemic facilitated breastfeeding because of more time at home, 18% felt the pandemic posed additional challenges including disruptions to lactation support. Conclusions: Parents who gave birth in the later pandemic did not report significant disruptions to professional breastfeeding support, likely as a result of the growth of virtual services. However, disparities in receipt of support require policy attention and action.

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.

Perceptions of Pediatric Endocrinologists and Neurologists on the Drivers of Telehealth Use.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent and drivers of telehealth use variation across clinicians within the same pediatric subspecialties. METHODS: In this mixed methods study, 8 pediatric medical groups in California shared data for eleven subspecialties. We calculated the proportion of total visits delivered via telehealth by medical group for each subspecialty and identified the 8 most common International Classification of Diseases 10 diagnoses for telehealth and in-person visits in endocrinology and neurology. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 pediatric endocrinologists and neurologists and applied a positive deviance approach comparing high versus low utilizers to identify factors that influenced their level of telehealth use. RESULTS: In 2019, medical groups that submitted quantitative data conducted 1.8 million visits with 549,306 unique pediatric patients. For 3 subspecialties, there was relatively little variation in telehealth use across medical groups: urology (mean: 16.5%, range: 9%-23%), orthopedics (mean: 7.2%, range: 2%-14%), and cardiology (mean: 11.2%, range: 2%-24%). The remaining subspecialties, including neurology (mean: 58.6%, range: 8%-93%) and endocrinology (mean: 49.5%, range: 24%-92%), exhibited higher levels of variation. For both neurology and endocrinology, the top diagnoses treated in-person were similar to those treated via telehealth. There was limited consensus on which clinical conditions were appropriate for telehealth. High telehealth utilizers were more comfortable conducting telehealth visits for new patients and often worked in practices with innovations to support telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians perceive that telehealth may be appropriate for a range of clinical conditions when the right supports are available.

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.

Use of Telehealth Across Pediatric Subspecialties Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The identification of variation in health care is important for quality improvement. Little is known about how different pediatric subspecialties are using telehealth and what is driving variation. Objective: To characterize trends in telehealth use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across pediatric subspecialties and the association of delivery change with no-show rates and access disparities. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, 8 large pediatric medical groups in California collaborated to share aggregate data on telehealth use for 11 pediatric subspecialties from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly in-person and telehealth visits for 11 subspecialties, characteristics of patients participating in in-person and telehealth visits, and no-show rates. Monthly use rates per 1000 unique patients were calculated. To assess changes in no-show rates, a series of linear regression models that included fixed effects for medical groups and calendar month were used. The demographic characteristics of patients served in person during the prepandemic period were compared with those of patients who received in-person and telehealth care during the pandemic period. Results: In 2019, participating medical groups conducted 1.8 million visits with 549 306 unique patients younger than 18 years (228 120 [41.5%] White and 277 167 [50.5%] not Hispanic). A total of 72 928 patients (13.3%) preferred a language other than English, and 250 329 (45.6%) had Medicaid. In specialties with lower telehealth use (cardiology, orthopedics, urology, nephrology, and dermatology), telehealth visits ranged from 6% to 29% of total visits from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. In specialties with higher telehealth use (genetics, behavioral health, pulmonology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and neurology), telehealth constituted 38.8% to 73.0% of total visits. From the prepandemic to the pandemic periods, no-show rates slightly increased for lower-telehealth-use subspecialties (9.2% to 9.4%) and higher-telehealth-use subspecialties (13.0% to 15.3%), but adjusted differences (comparing lower-use and higher-use subspecialties) in changes were not statistically significant (difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.2 to 6.3 percentage points; P = .15). Patients who preferred a language other than English constituted 6140 in-person visits (22.2%) vs 2707 telehealth visits (11.4%) in neurology (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: There was high variability in adoption of telehealth across subspecialties and in patterns of use over time. The documentation of variation in telehealth adoption can inform evolving telehealth policy for pediatric patients, including the appropriateness of telehealth for different patient needs and areas where additional tools are needed to promote appropriate use.

Legislation Increased Medicare Telestroke Billing, But Underbilling And Erroneous Billing Remain Common.

In the Furthering Access to Stroke Telemedicine (FAST) Act, passed as part of a budget omnibus in 2018, Congress permanently expanded Medicare payment for telemedicine consultations for acute stroke ("telestroke") from delivery only in rural areas to delivery in both urban and rural areas, effective January 1, 2019. Using a controlled time-series analysis, we found that one year after FAST Act implementation, billing for Medicare telestroke increased substantially in emergency departments at both directly affected urban hospitals and indirectly affected rural hospitals. However, at that time only a minority of hospitals with known telestroke capacity had ever billed Medicare for that service, and there was substantial billing inconsistent with Medicare requirements. As Congress considers options for Medicare telemedicine payment after the COVID-19 pandemic, our findings, which are consistent with confusion among providers regarding telemedicine billing requirements, suggest that simplified payment rules would help ensure that expanded reimbursement achieves its intended impact.

Impact of telelactation services on breastfeeding outcomes among Black and Latinx parents: protocol for the Tele-MILC randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding offers many medical and neurodevelopmental advantages for birthing parents and infants; however, the majority of parents stop breastfeeding before it is recommended. Professional lactation support by the International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs) increases breastfeeding rates; however, many communities lack access to IBCLCs. Black and Latinx parents have lower breastfeeding rates, and limited access to professional lactation support may contribute to this disparity. Virtual "telelactation" consults that use two-way video have the potential to increase access to IBCLCs among disadvantaged populations. We present a protocol for the digital Tele-MILC trial, which uses mixed methods to evaluate the impact of telelactation services on breastfeeding outcomes. The objective of this pragmatic, parallel design randomized controlled trial is to assess the impact of telelactation on breastfeeding duration and exclusivity and explore how acceptability of and experiences with telelactation vary across Latinx, Black, and non-Black and non-Latinx parents to guide future improvement of these services. METHODS: 2400 primiparous, pregnant individuals age > 18 who intend to breastfeed and live in the USA underserved by IBCLCs will be recruited. Recruitment will occur via Ovia, a pregnancy tracker mobile phone application (app) used by over one million pregnant individuals in the USA annually. Participants will be randomized to (1) on-demand telelactation video calls on personal devices or (2) ebook on infant care/usual care. Breastfeeding outcomes will be captured via surveys and interviews and compared across racial and ethnic groups. This study will track participants for 8 months (including 6 months postpartum). Primary outcomes include breastfeeding duration and breastfeeding exclusivity. We will quantify differences in these outcomes across racial and ethnic groups. Both intention-to-treat and as-treated (using instrumental variable methods) analyses will be performed. This study will also generate qualitative data on the experiences of different subgroups of parents with the telelactation intervention, including barriers to use, satisfaction, and strengths and limitations of this delivery model. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized study evaluating the impact of telelactation on breastfeeding outcomes. It will inform the design and implementation of future digital trials among pregnant and postpartum people, including Black and Latinx populations which are historically underrepresented in clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04856163. Registered on April 23, 2021.

Assessment of Patient Preferences for Telehealth in Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Health Care.

Importance: Telehealth use greatly increased in 2020 during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient preferences for telehealth or in-person care are an important factor in defining the role of telehealth in the postpandemic world. Objective: To ascertain patient preferences for video visits after the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency and to identify patient perceptions of the value of video visits and the role of out-of-pocket cost in changing patient preference for each visit modality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted using a nationally representative sample of adult members of the RAND American Life Panel. The data were obtained from the American Life Panel Omnibus Survey, which was fielded between March 8 and 19, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preferences for video visits vs in-person care were analyzed in the survey. The first question was about participants' baseline preference for an in-person or a video visit for a nonemergency health issue. The second question entailed choosing between the preferred visit modality with a cost of $30 and another modality with a cost of $10. Questions also involved demographic characteristics, experience with video visits, willingness to use video visits, and preferences for the amount of telehealth use after the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of 2080 of 3391 sampled panel members completed the survey (participation rate, 61.3%). Participants in the weighted sample had a mean (SE) age of 51.1 (0.67) years and were primarily women (1079 [51.9%]). Most participants (66.5%) preferred at least some video visits in the future, but when faced with a choice between an in-person or a video visit for a health care encounter that could be conducted either way, more than half of respondents (53.0%) preferred an in-person visit. Among those who initially preferred an in-person visit when out-of-pocket costs were not a factor, 49.8% still preferred in-person care and 23.5% switched to a video visit when confronted with higher relative costs for in-person care. In contrast, among those who initially preferred a video visit, only 18.9% still preferred a video visit and 61.7% switched to in-person visit when confronted with higher relative costs for video visits. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study found that participants were generally willing to use video visits but preferred in-person care, and those who preferred video visits were more sensitive to paying out-of-pocket cost. These results suggest that understanding patient preferences will help identify telehealth's role in future health care delivery.

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.

Rising to the challenges of the pandemic: Telehealth innovations in U.S. emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE: During the first 9 months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many emergency departments (EDs) experimented with telehealth applications to reduce virus exposure, decrease visit volume, and conserve personal protective equipment. We interviewed ED leaders who implemented telehealth programs to inform responses to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and future emergencies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September to November 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with ED leaders across the United States. We identified EDs with pandemic-related telehealth programs through literature review and snowball sampling. Maximum variation sampling was used to capture a range of experiences. We used standard qualitative analysis techniques, consisting of both inductive and deductive approaches to identify and characterize themes. RESULTS: We completed 15 interviews with EDs leaders in 10 states. From March to November 2020, participants experimented with more than a dozen different types of telehealth applications including tele-isolation, tele-triage, tele-consultation, virtual postdischarge assessment, acute care in the home, and tele-palliative care. Prior experience with telehealth was key for implementation of new applications. Most new telehealth applications turned out to be temporary because they were no longer needed to support the response. The leading barriers to telehealth implementation during the pandemic included technology challenges and the need for "hands-on" implementation support in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, EDs rapidly implemented many telehealth innovations. Their experiences can inform future responses.