Early Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Telehealth Patterns in Primary Care, Mental Health, and Specialty Care Facilities in Texas.

OBJECTIVES: Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many US clinics have shifted some or all of their practice from in-person to virtual visits. In this study, we assessed the use of telehealth among primary care and specialty clinics, by targeting healthcare administrators via multiple channels. METHODS: Using an online survey, we assessed the use of, barriers to, and reimbursement for telehealth. Respondents included clinic administrators (chief executive officers, vice presidents, directors, and senior-level managers). RESULTS: A total of 85 complete responses were recorded, 79% of which represented solo or group practices and 63% reported a daily patient census >50. The proportion of clinics that delivered ≥50% of their consults using telehealth increased from 16% in March to 42% in April, 35% in May, and 30% in June. Clinics identified problems with telehealth reimbursement; although 63% of clinics reported that ≥75% of their telehealth consults were reimbursed, only 51% indicated that ≥75% of their telehealth visits were reimbursed at par with in-person office visits. Sixty-five percent of clinics reported having basic or foundational telehealth services, whereas only 9% of clinics reported advanced telehealth maturity. Value-based care participating clinics were more likely to report advanced telehealth services (27%), compared with non-value-based care clinics (3%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the adaptability of clinics to quickly transition and adopt telehealth. Uncertainty about reimbursement and policy changes may make the shift temporal, however.

Medicine, Machines, and Medical Education.

While advances in science and technology continue to be at the forefront of the evolution of medical practice, the 21st century is also undergoing a unique and profound cultural shift that is changing the very nature of what it means to be a medical professional, namely humankind's transition to an information-based internet society. Medical care will increasingly depend on computer-generated probabilities guided and supported by a growing variety of individuals in health care-related professions, including statisticians, technologists, and information managers. Perhaps the biggest challenge to the profession will come from the erosion of professional autonomy, driven by smart machines, social networks, and internet search engines. As a result of these and other changes, physicians are facing a systematic loss of control, often without the direct input and leadership of the profession itself. In this commentary, the author urges the profession to adopt several strategies, including shifting its focus from reimbursement to the care patients value most, meaningfully addressing critical issues in health policy, becoming the definitive source for publicly available medical information, reimagining medical education, and overhauling the existing accreditation and licensing systems. Medical education must go beyond a focus on physicians whose professional identity revolves around being the exclusive source of medical knowledge. In the digitized 21st century, medical education should emphasize the centrality of the humanistic interface with patients such that the doctor-patient relationship is paramount in the complex medical world of machines and social media. Removing the roadblocks to successful professional reform is no small task, but the process can begin with a grassroots movement that empowers physicians and facilitates organizational and behavioral change. Failure to take action may well hasten the diminishment of patient care and the profession's trusted role in society.

COVID-19 Threatens Progress Toward Gender Equity Within Academic Medicine.

Women remain underrepresented within academic medicine despite past and present efforts to promote gender equity. The authors discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic could stymie progress toward gender parity within the biomedical workforce and limit the retention and advancement of women in science and medicine. Women faculty face distinct challenges as they navigate the impact of shelter-in-place and social distancing on work and home life. An unequal division of household labor and family care between men and women means women faculty are vulnerable to inequities that may develop in the workplace as they strive to maintain academic productivity and professional development without adequate assistance with domestic tasks and family care. Emerging data suggest that gender differences in academic productivity may be forthcoming as a direct result of the pandemic. Existing gender inequities in professional visibility, networking, and collaboration may be exacerbated as activities transition from in-person to virtual environments and create new barriers to advancement. Meanwhile, initiatives designed to promote gender equity within academic medicine may lose key funding due to the economic impact of COVID-19 on higher education. To ensure that the gender gap within academic medicine does not widen, the authors call upon academic leaders and the broader biomedical community to support women faculty through deliberate actions that promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion. The authors provide several recommendations, including faculty needs assessments; review of gender bias within tenure-clock-extension offers; more opportunities for mentorship, sponsorship, and professional recognition; and financial commitments to support equity initiatives. Leadership for these efforts should be at the institutional and departmental levels, and leaders should ensure a gender balance on task forces and committees to avoid overburdening women faculty with additional service work. Together, these strategies will contribute to the development of a more equitable workforce capable of transformative medical discovery and care.