Changes in Elective and Urgent Surgery Among TRICARE Beneficiaries During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is known to have altered the capacity to perform surgical procedures in numerous health care settings. The impact of this change within the direct and private-sector settings of the Military Health System has not been effectively explored, particularly as it pertains to disparities in surgical access and shifting of services between sectors. We sought to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced access to care for surgical procedures within the direct and private-sector settings of the Military Health System. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated claims for patients receiving urgent and elective surgical procedures in March-September 2017, 2019, and 2020. The pre-COVID period consisted of 2017 and 2019 and was compared to 2020. We adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical comorbidities, and region of care using multivariable Poisson regression. Subanalyses considered the impact of race and sponsor rank as a proxy for socioeconomic status. RESULTS: During the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no significant difference in the adjusted rate of urgent surgical procedures in direct (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) or private-sector (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02) care. This was also true for elective surgeries in both settings. No significant disparities were identified in any of the racial subgroups or proxies for socioeconomic status we considered in direct or private-sector care. CONCLUSIONS: We found a similar performance of elective and urgent surgeries in both the private sector and direct care during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Importantly, no racial disparities were identified in either care setting.

Interventional procedure plans generated by telemedicine visits in spine patients are rarely changed after in-person evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The role of telemedicine in the evaluation and treatment of patients with spinal disorders is rapidly expanding, brought on largely by the COVID-19 pandemic. Within this context, the ability of pain specialists to accurately diagnose and plan appropriate interventional spine procedures based entirely on telemedicine visits, without an in-person evaluation, remains to be established. In this study, our primary objective was to assess the relevance of telemedicine to interventional spine procedure planning by determining whether procedure plans established solely from virtual visits changed following in-person evaluation. METHODS: We reviewed virtual and in-person clinical encounters from our academic health system's 10 interventional spine specialists. We included patients who were seen exclusively via telemedicine encounters and indicated for an interventional procedure with documented procedural plans. Virtual plans were then compared with the actual procedures performed following in-person evaluation. Demographic data as well as the type and extent of physical examination performed by the interventional spine specialist were also recorded. RESULTS: Of the 87 new patients included, the mean age was 60 years (SE 1.4 years) and the preprocedural plan established by telemedicine, primarily videoconferencing, did not change for 76 individuals (87%; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94) following in-person evaluation. Based on the size of our sample, interventional procedures indicated solely during telemedicine encounters may be accurate in 79%-94% of cases in the broader population. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that telemedicine evaluations are a generally accurate means of preprocedural assessment and development of interventional spine procedure plans. These findings clearly demonstrate the capabilities of telemedicine for evaluating spine patients and planning interventional spine procedures.