Perceptions of telehealth among older U.S. adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 necessitated a shift from in-person to virtual care for all patients, particularly older adults. It is unknown how older individuals' views of telehealth changed during this time and how this may affect their future use of telehealth services. METHODS: We used data from a cross-sectional online survey of a nationally representative sample of 2074 U.S. adults ages 50-80 who were participants in the National Poll on Healthy Aging. We performed a descriptive and multivariable analysis of individuals' perspectives on past and future telehealth visits, sociodemographics, and health status. RESULTS: Before March 2020, 5.8% of respondents had used telehealth, compared to 32.0% by June 2020. Of telehealth users, 36.1% indicated their most recent telehealth visit used audio-only (i.e., without video) technology. In multivariable analysis, those who never used video technology compared to those who were "very comfortable" (average marginal effect (AME) 49%, 95% CI: 36-63), identified as Hispanic (AME 19% vs White, non-Hispanic, 95% CI: 5-32), or were female (AME 9%, 95% CI: 1-17) were more likely to report audio-only use. Concerns remained about the inability to conduct physical exams (75%) and telehealth quality of care (67%), though most (64%) older adults indicated an interest in future telehealth visits. DISCUSSION: Telehealth use increased substantially among older U.S. adults during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, many reported using audio-only telehealth, an important consideration for policymakers and providers. Addressing older adults' concerns about and barriers to telehealth visits is needed to ensure telehealth does not exacerbate disparities in their care.

Association Between Primary Care Practice Telehealth Use and Acute Care Visits for Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Conditions During COVID-19.

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many primary care practices adopted telehealth in place of in-person care to preserve access to care for patients with acute and chronic conditions. The extent to which this change was associated with their rates of acute care visits (ie, emergency department visits and hospitalizations) for these conditions is unknown. Objective: To examine whether a primary care practice's level of telehealth use is associated with a change in their rate of acute care visits for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSC visits). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis used a difference-in-differences study design to analyze insurance claims data from 4038 Michigan primary care practices from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020. Exposures: Low, medium, or high tertile of practice-level telehealth use based on the rate of telehealth visits from March 1 to August 31, 2020, compared with prepandemic visit volumes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted ACSC visit rates before (June to September 2019) and after (June to September 2020) the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, reported as an annualized average marginal effect. The study examined overall, acute, and chronic ACSC visits separately and controlled for practice size, in-person visit volume, zip code-level attributes, and patient characteristics. Results: A total of nearly 1.5 million beneficiaries (53% female; mean [SD] age, 40 [22] years) were attributed to 4038 primary care practices. Compared with 2019 visit volumes, median telehealth use was 0.4% for the low telehealth tertile, 14.7% for the medium telehealth tertile, and 39.0% for the high telehealth tertile. The number of ACSC visits decreased in all tertiles, with adjusted rates changing from 24.3 to 14.9 per 1000 patients per year (low), 23.9 to 15.3 per 1000 patients per year (medium), and 27.5 to 20.2 per 1000 patients per year (high). In difference-in-differences analysis, high telehealth use was associated with a higher ACSC visit rate (2.10 more visits per 1000 patients per year; 95% CI, 0.22-3.97) compared with low telehealth practices; practices in the middle tertile did not differ significantly from the low tertile. No difference was found in ACSC visits across tertiles when acute and chronic ACSC visits were examined separately. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study that used a difference-in-differences analysis, the association between practice-level telehealth use and ACSC visits was mixed. High telehealth use was associated with a slightly higher overall ACSC visit rate than low telehealth practices. The association of telehealth with downstream care use should be closely monitored going forward.

Use of Telehealth by Surgical Specialties During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: While telehealth use in surgery has shown to be feasible, telehealth became a major modality of health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To assess patterns of telehealth use across surgical specialties before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: Insurance claims from a Michigan statewide commercial payer for new patient visits with a surgeon from 1 of 9 surgical specialties during one of the following periods: prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (period 1: January 5 to March 7, 2020), early pandemic (period 2: March 8 to June 6, 2020), and late pandemic (period 3: June 7 to September 5, 2020). Exposures: Telehealth implementation owing to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: (1) Conversion rate defined as the rate of weekly new patient telehealth visits divided by mean weekly number of total new patient visits in 2019. This outcome adjusts for a substantial decrease in outpatient care during the pandemic. (2) Weekly number of new patient telehealth visits divided by weekly number of total new patient visits. Results: Among 4405 surgeons in the cohort, 2588 (58.8%) performed telehealth in any patient care context. Specifically for new patient visits, 1182 surgeons (26.8%) used telehealth. A total of 109 610 surgical new outpatient visits were identified during the pandemic. The median (interquartile range) age of telehealth patients was 46.8 (34.1-58.4) years compared with 52.6 (38.3-62.3) years for patients who received care in-person. Prior to March 2020, less than 1% (8 of 173 939) of new patient visits were conducted through telehealth. Telehealth use peaked in April 2020 (week 14) and facilitated 34.6% (479 of 1383) of all new patient visits during that week. The telehealth conversion rate peaked in April 2020 (week 15) and was equal to 8.2% of the 2019 mean weekly new patient visit volume. During period 2, a mean (SD) of 16.6% (12.0%) of all new patient surgical visits were conducted via telehealth (conversion rate of 5.1% of 2019 mean weekly new patient visit volumes). During period 3, 3.0% (2168 of 71 819) of all new patient surgical visits were conducted via telehealth (conversion rate of 2.5% of 2019 new patient visit volumes). Mean (SD) telehealth conversion rates varied by specialty with urology being the highest (14.3% [7.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Results from this study showed that telehealth use grew across all surgical specialties in Michigan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While rates of telehealth use have declined as in-person care has resumed, telehealth use remains substantially higher across all surgical specialties than it was prior to the pandemic.

Predictors of Audio-Only Versus Video Telehealth Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Most health insurance organizations reimbursed both video and audio-only (i.e., phone) visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, but may discontinue phone visit coverage after the pandemic. The impact of discontinuing phone visit coverage on various patient subgroups is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Identify patient subgroups that are more probable to access telehealth through phone versus video. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. PATIENTS: All patients at a U.S. academic medical center who had an outpatient visit that was eligible for telehealth from April through June 2020. MAIN MEASURES: The marginal and cumulative effect of patient demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics on the probability of using video versus phone visits. KEY RESULTS: A total of 104,204 patients had at least one telehealth visit and 45.4% received care through phone visits only. Patient characteristics associated with lower probability of using video visits included age (average marginal effect [AME] -6.9% for every 10 years of age increase, 95%CI -7.8, -4.5), African-American (AME -10.2%, 95%CI -11.4, -7.6), need an interpreter (AME -19.3%, 95%CI -21.8, -14.4), Medicaid as primary insurance (AME -12.1%, 95%CI -13.7, -9.0), and live in a zip code with low broadband access (AME -7.2%, 95%CI -8.1, -4.8). Most patients had more than one factor which further reduced their probability of using video visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who are older, are African-American, require an interpreter, use Medicaid, and live in areas with low broadband access are less likely to use video visits as compared to phone. Post-pandemic policies that eliminate insurance coverage for phone visits may decrease telehealth access for patients who have one or more of these characteristics.

Emergency department provider in triage: assessing site-specific rationale, operational feasibility, and financial impact.

Emergency department (ED) crowding is recognized as a critical threat to patient safety, while sub-optimal ED patient flow also contributes to reduced patient satisfaction and efficiency of care. Provider in triage (PIT) programs-which typically involve, at a minimum, a physician or advanced practice provider conducting an initial screening exam and potentially initiating treatment and diagnostic testing at the time of triage-are frequently endorsed as a mechanism to reduce ED length of stay (LOS) and therefore mitigate crowding, improve patient satisfaction, and improve ED operational and financial performance. However, the peer-reviewed evidence regarding the impact of PIT programs on measures including ED LOS, wait times, and costs (as variously defined) is mixed. Mechanistically, PIT programs exert their effects by initiating diagnostic work-ups earlier and, sometimes, by equipping triage providers to directly disposition patients. However, depending on local contextual factors-including the co-existence of other front-end interventions and delays in ED throughput not addressed by PIT-we demonstrate how these features may or may not ultimately translate into reduced ED LOS in different settings. Consequently, site-specific analysis of the root causes of excessive ED LOS, along with mechanistic assessment of potential countermeasures, is essential for appropriate deployment and successful design of PIT programs at individual EDs. Additional motivations for implementing PIT programs may include their potential to enhance patient safety, patient satisfaction, and team dynamics. In this conceptual article, we address a gap in the literature by demonstrating the mechanisms underlying PIT program results and providing a framework for ED decision-makers to assess the local rationale for, operational feasibility of, and financial impact of PIT programs.