Patient Characteristics Associated With Being Offered or Choosing Telephone vs Video Virtual Visits Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: After the rapid expansion of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is debate about the role and reimbursement of telephone vs video visits. Missing is an understanding of what type of virtual visits clinicians may offer or patients may choose when given the option. Objective: To evaluate characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries associated with practices and clinicians offering telephone visits only and patients receiving telephone visits only, when both telephone and video were available. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used 2019-2020 nationally representative Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data. Participants included community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of medical care who attended a practice offering telemedicine. Data were analyzed from May 3 to August 23, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify patient sociodemographic (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational level, income, English proficiency, housing type, and number living at home), clinical (dementia, mental illness, self-rated health, hearing impairment, and vision impairment), and technology (technology access and prior use of video visits) factors associated with respondents' report of (1) practices offering telephone virtual visits only, (2) being offered telephone visits only when both video and telephone visits were available, and (3) receiving telephone visits only when both video and telephone visits were offered. Results: Of 4691 respondents (representing 27 887 642 Medicare beneficiaries; mean [SD] age, 71.3[8.1] years; 55.0% female) reporting that their practice offered telemedicine, 1234 (23.3% weighted) reported that their practices offered telephone virtual visits only; factors associated with being in a practice offering telephone only included older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.62 [95% CI, 1.10-2.39] for those aged ≥85 years vs 18-64 years), male sex (aOR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.12-1.64]), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.03-1.95]), lower income (aOR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.43-2.49] for those with income ≤100% vs >200% of the federal poverty level), poor self-rated health (aOR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.01-1.56]), and less technology access (aOR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.61-2.60] for those with low vs high access). Of the 1593 patients in practices offering both video and telephone visits, 297 (16.7% weighted) were themselves offered telephone visits only; factors associated with being offered telephone only included Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.13-3.41]), limited English proficiency (aOR, 3.05 [95% CI, 1.28-7.31]), and less technology access (aOR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.00-2.81] for those with low vs high access). Finally, of the 711 respondents who were themselves offered both video and telephone visits, 304 (43.1% weighted) had a telephone visit; factors associated with receiving telephone visits only were older age (aOR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.21-5.92] for those aged 75-84 years vs 18-64 years) and less technology access (aOR, 2.65 [95% CI, 1.12-6.25] for those with moderate vs high access]). Among those who used video calls in other settings and were offered a choice, 122 (28.5%, weighted) chose telephone visits. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of Medicare beneficiaries, respondents often reported being offered or choosing telephone visits even when video visits were available. Study findings suggest that policy makers and clinical leaders should support the use of telephone visits to the extent that telephone is appropriate, while addressing both practice-level and patient-level barriers to video visits.

Non-Visit-Based and Non-Infection-Related Antibiotic Use in the US: A Cohort Study of Privately Insured Patients During 2016-2018.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory antibiotic prescriptions without a clinic visit or without documentation of infection could represent overuse and contribute to adverse outcomes. We aim to describe US ambulatory antibiotic prescribing, including those without an associated visit or infection diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study using data of all patients receiving antibacterial, antibiotic prescriptions from 04/01/2016 to 06/30/2018 in a large US private health insurance plan. We identified outpatient antibiotic prescriptions as (1) associated with a clinician visit and an infection-related diagnosis; (2) associated with a clinician visit but no infection-related diagnosis; or (3) not associated with an in-person clinician visit in the 7 days before the prescription (non-visit-based). We then assessed whether non-visit-based antibiotic prescriptions (NVBAPs) differed from visit-based antibiotics by patient, clinician, or antibiotic characteristics using multivariable models. RESULTS: The cohort included 8.6M enrollees who filled 22.3M antibiotic prescriptions. NVBAP accounted for 31% (6.9M) of fills, and non-infection-related prescribing accounted for 22% (4.9M). NVBAP rates were lower for children than for adults (0-17 years old, 16%; 18-64 years old, 33%; >65 years old, 34%). Among most commonly prescribed antibiotic classes, NVBAP was highest for penicillins (36%) and lowest for cephalosporins (25%) and macrolides (25%). Specialist physicians had the highest rate of NVBAP (38%), followed by internists (28%), family medicine (20%), and pediatricians (10%). In multivariable models, NVBAP was associated with increasing age, and NVBAP was less likely for patients in the South, those with more baseline clinical visits, or those with chronic lung disease. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of ambulatory antibiotic use was either non-visit-based or non-infection-related. Particularly given health care changes due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, efforts to improve antibiotic prescribing must account for non-visit-based and non-infection-related prescribing.

Pharmacotherapy for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Treatment Patterns by Disease Severity.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) depend on disease severity, but the prescribing pattern by severity and drivers of therapeutic choices remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to evaluate pharmacological treatment patterns by COVID-19 severity and identify the determinants of prescribing for COVID-19. METHODS: Using electronic health record data from a large Massachusetts-based healthcare system, we identified all patients aged ≥ 18 years hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 1 March to 24 May, 2020. We defined five levels of COVID-19 severity at hospital admission: (1) hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen; (2-4) hospitalized and requiring oxygen ≤ 2, 3-4, and ≥ 5 L per minute, respectively; and (5) intubated or admitted to an intensive care unit. We assessed the medications used to treat COVID-19 or as supportive care during hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 2821 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, we found inpatient mortality increased by severity from 5% for level 1 to 23% for level 5. As compared to patients with severity level 1, those with severity level 5 were 3.53 times (95% confidence interval 2.73-4.57) more likely to receive a medication used to treat COVID-19. Other predictors of treatment were fever, low oxygen saturation, presence of co-morbidities, and elevated inflammatory biomarkers. The use of most COVID-19 relevant medications has dropped substantially while the use of remdesivir and therapeutic anticoagulants has increased over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Careful consideration of disease severity and other determinants of COVID-19 drug use is necessary for appropriate conduct and interpretation of non-randomized studies evaluating outcomes of COVID-19 treatments.