Physicians' views on optimal use and payment system for telemedicine: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is already in use in daily practice, but appropriate reimbursement and physician payment is falling behind in many countries. One reason is the limited availability of research on the matter. This research therefore examined physicians' views on the optimal use and payment modalities for telemedicine. METHODS: Sixty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with physicians from 19 medical disciplines. Interviews were encoded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Telephone and video televisits tend not to be used as a first patient contact, except for triage of patients in urgency situations. Several minimum required modalities for the payment system of televisits and telemonitoring were identified. For televisits these were: (i) remuneration of both telephone- and videovisits to increase healthcare equity, (ii) little or no differentiation between videovisit and in-person visit fee to make videovisits financially attractive and sustainable for physicians, (iii) differentiation of televisit fee per medical discipline, and (iv) quality requirements such as mandatory reporting in the patient's medical file. The identified minimum required modalities for telemonitoring were: (i) an alternative payment scheme than fee-for-service, (ii) remunerating not only physicians but also other involved health professionals, (iii) designating and remunerating a coordinator, and (iv) distinguishing sporadic vs. continuously follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This research investigated the telemedicine usage behavior of physicians. Moreover, several minimum required modalities were identified for a physician-supported payment system of telemedicine, as these innovations necessitate challenging and innovation of the healthcare payment systems as well.

Changes in Medicare Accountable Care Organization Spending, Utilization, and Quality Performance 2 Years Into the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This cohort study uses data from the Medicare Shared Savings Program to assess changes in spending, utilization, and quality performance from before the COVID-19 pandemic (2019) to year 2 of the pandemic (2021).

Family Physicians Stopping Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

We conducted 2 analyses using administrative data to understand whether more family physicians in Ontario, Canada stopped working during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with previous years. First, we found 3.1% of physicians working in 2019 (n = 385/12,247) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic; compared with other family physicians, a higher portion were aged 75 years or older (13.0% vs 3.4%, P <0.001), had fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs 24.9%, P <0.001), and had a panel size under 500 patients (40.0% vs 25.8%, P <0.001). Second, a fitted regression line found the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians stopping work was 0.03% per year from 2010 to 2019 (P = 0.042) but 1.2% between 2019 to 2020 (P <0.001). More research is needed to understand the impact of physicians stopping work on primary care attachment and access to care.

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.

Sepsis Among Medicare Beneficiaries: 4. Precoronavirus Disease 2019 Update January 2012-February 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To provide updated information on the burdens of sepsis during acute inpatient admissions for Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Analysis of paid Medicare claims via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services DataLink Project. SETTING: All U.S. acute-care hospitals, excluding federally operated hospitals (Veterans Administration and Defense Health Agency). PATIENTS: All Medicare beneficiaries, January 2012-February 2020, with an explicit sepsis diagnostic code assigned during an inpatient admission. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The count of Medicare Part A/B (fee-for-service) plus Medicare Advantage inpatient sepsis admissions rose from 981,027 (CY2012) to 1,700,433 (CY 2019). The proportion of total admissions with sepsis in the Medicare Advantage population rose from 21.43% to 35.39%, reflecting the increasing beneficiary proportion enrolled in Medicare Advantage. In CY2019, 6-month mortality rates in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries for sepsis continued to decline, but remained high: 59.9% for septic shock, 35.5% for severe sepsis, 30.8% for sepsis attributed to a specific organism, and 26.5% for unspecified sepsis. Total fee-for-service-only inpatient hospital costs rose from $17.79B (CY2012) to $22.98B (CY2019). We estimated that the aggregate cost of sepsis hospital care for the entire U.S. population was at least $57.47B in 2019. Inclusion of 14 months' (January 2019-February 2020) newer data exposed new trends: the cost per patient, number of admissions, and fraction of patients with sepsis labeled as present on admission inflected around November 2015, coincident with the change to International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, and introduction of the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) metric. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis among Medicare beneficiaries precoronavirus disease 2019 imposed immense burdens upon patients, their families, and the taxpayers.

Patient Characteristics and Costs Associated With COVID-19-Related Medical Care Among Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: New cases of COVID-19 continue to occur daily in the United States, and the need for medical treatments continues to grow. Knowledge of the direct medical costs of COVID-19 treatments is limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine the characteristics of older adults with COVID-19 and their costs for COVID-19-related medical care. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Medical claims for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. PATIENTS: Medicare FFS beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who had a COVID-19-related medical encounter during April through December 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Patient characteristics and direct medical costs of COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits. RESULTS: Among 28.1 million Medicare FFS beneficiaries, 1 181 127 (4.2%) sought COVID-19-related medical care. Among these patients, 23.0% had an inpatient stay and 4.2% died during hospitalization. The majority of the patients were female (57.0%), non-Hispanic White (79.6%), and residents of an urban county (77.2%). Medicare FFS costs for COVID-19-related medical care were $6.3 billion; 92.6% of costs were for hospitalizations. The mean hospitalization cost was $21 752, and the mean length of stay was 9.2 days; hospitalization cost and length of stay were higher if the patient needed a ventilator ($49 441 and 17.1 days) or died ($32 015 and 11.3 days). The mean cost per outpatient visit was $164. Patients aged 75 years or older were more likely to be hospitalized, but their hospitalizations were associated with lower costs than for younger patients. Male sex and non-White race/ethnicity were associated with higher probability of being hospitalized and higher medical costs. LIMITATION: Results are based on Medicare FFS patients. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in substantial disease and economic burden among older Americans, particularly those of non-White race/ethnicity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Telestroke Across the Continuum of Care: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.

While use of telemedicine to guide emergent treatment of ischemic stroke is well established, the COVID-19 pandemic motivated the rapid expansion of care via telemedicine to provide consistent care while reducing patient and provider exposure and preserving personal protective equipment. Temporary changes in re-imbursement, inclusion of home office and patient home environments, and increased access to telehealth technologies by patients, health care staff and health care facilities were key to provide an environment for creative and consistent high-quality stroke care. The continuum of care via telestroke has broadened to include prehospital, inter-facility and intra-facility hospital-based services, stroke telerehabilitation, and ambulatory telestroke. However, disparities in technology access remain a challenge. Preservation of reimbursement and the reduction of regulatory burden that was initiated during the public health emergency will be necessary to maintain expanded patient access to the full complement of telestroke services. Here we outline many of these initiatives and discuss potential opportunities for optimal use of technology in stroke care through and beyond the pandemic.

Progression of Changes in Vascular Surgery Practices during the Novel Corona Virus SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly since it was identified. We sought to understand its effects on vascular surgery practices stratified by VASCON surgical readiness level and determine how these effects have changed during the course of the pandemic. METHODS: All members of the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society were sent electronic surveys questioning the effects of COVID-19 on their practices in the early pandemic in April (EP) and four months later in the pandemic in August (LP) 2020. RESULTS: Response rates were 206/731 (28%) in the EP group and 108/731 (15%) in the LP group (P < 0.0001). Most EP respondents reported VASCON levels less than 3 (168/206,82%), indicating increased hospital limitations while 6/108 (6%) in the LP group reported this level (P < 0.0001). The EP group was more likely to report a lower VASCON level (increased resource limitations), and decreased clinic, hospital and emergency room consults. Despite an increase of average cases/week to pre-COVID-19 levels, 46/108 (43%) of LP report continued decreased compensation, with 57% reporting more than 10% decrease. Respondents in the decreased compensation group were more likely to have reported a VASCON level 3 or lower earlier in the pandemic (P = 0.018). 91/108(84%) of LP group have treated COVID-19 patients for thromboembolic events, most commonly acute limb ischemia (76/108) and acute DVT (76/108). While the majority of respondents are no longer delaying the vascular surgery cases, 76/108 (70%) feel that vascular patient care has suffered due to earlier delays, and 36/108 (33%) report a backlog of cases caused by the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound effect on vascular surgery practices earlier in the pandemic, resulting in continued detrimental effects on the provision of vascular care as well as compensation received by vascular surgeons.

Heeding the Call for Urgent Primary Care Payment Reform: What Do We Know about How to Get Started?

The COVID-19 pandemic has added further urgency to the need for primary care payment reform. Fee-for-service payments limit the flexibility of practices to respond to crises and leave practices without sufficient revenues when visit volumes decrease. Historic fee-for-service payments have been inadequate, and prior implementations of prospective payments have encountered challenges; there is a need to bring forward the best available evidence on how to design prospective payments for payers and policymakers. Evidence suggests setting primary care investment at 10% to 12% of the total cost of care, approximately translating to an average $85 per member per month, with significant variation based on age and adjustment for medical and social measures of risk. Enhanced investment in primary care should be aligned across payers and support practice transformation to advanced models of care.

Launching a Statewide COVID-19 Primary Care Hotline and Telemedicine Service.

To respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and recover from its aftermath, primary care teams will face waves of overwhelming demand for information and the need to significantly transform care delivery. INNOVATION: Oregon Health & Science University's primary care team envisioned and implemented the COVID-19 Connected Care Center, a statewide telephone "hotline" service. RESULTS: The hotline has taken more than 5825 calls from patients in 33 of Oregon's 36 counties in less than 3 months. In preliminary survey data, 86% of patients said their questions were answered during the call, 90% would recommend this service, and 70% reported a reduction in stress levels about coronavirus. In qualitative interviews, patients reported their questions answered, short wait times, nurses spent time as needed, and appropriate follow-up was arranged. CONCLUSION: Academic health centers may have the capacity to leverage their extensive resources to rapidly launch a multiphased pandemic response that meets peoples' need for information and access to primary care, while minimizing risk of infection and emergency department use and rapidly supporting primary care teams to make the necessary operational changes to do the same in their communities. Such efforts require external funding in a fee-for-service payment model.

Getting The Price Right: How Some Countries Control Spending In A Fee-For-Service System.

Although the US has the highest health care prices in the world, the specific mechanisms commonly used by other countries to set and update prices are often overlooked, with a tendency to favor strategies such as reducing the use of fee-for-service reimbursement. Comparing policies in three high-income countries (France, Germany, and Japan), we describe how payers and physicians engage in structured fee negotiations and standardize prices in systems where fee-for-service is the main model of outpatient physician reimbursement. The parties involved, the frequency of fee schedule updates, and the scope of the negotiations vary, but all three countries attempt to balance the interests of payers with those of physician associations. Instead of looking for policy importation, this analysis demonstrates the benefits of structuring negotiations and standardizing fee-for-service payments independent of any specific reform proposal, such as single-payer reform and public insurance buy-ins.