Assessment of Patient Preferences for Telehealth in Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Health Care.

Importance: Telehealth use greatly increased in 2020 during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient preferences for telehealth or in-person care are an important factor in defining the role of telehealth in the postpandemic world. Objective: To ascertain patient preferences for video visits after the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency and to identify patient perceptions of the value of video visits and the role of out-of-pocket cost in changing patient preference for each visit modality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted using a nationally representative sample of adult members of the RAND American Life Panel. The data were obtained from the American Life Panel Omnibus Survey, which was fielded between March 8 and 19, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preferences for video visits vs in-person care were analyzed in the survey. The first question was about participants' baseline preference for an in-person or a video visit for a nonemergency health issue. The second question entailed choosing between the preferred visit modality with a cost of $30 and another modality with a cost of $10. Questions also involved demographic characteristics, experience with video visits, willingness to use video visits, and preferences for the amount of telehealth use after the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of 2080 of 3391 sampled panel members completed the survey (participation rate, 61.3%). Participants in the weighted sample had a mean (SE) age of 51.1 (0.67) years and were primarily women (1079 [51.9%]). Most participants (66.5%) preferred at least some video visits in the future, but when faced with a choice between an in-person or a video visit for a health care encounter that could be conducted either way, more than half of respondents (53.0%) preferred an in-person visit. Among those who initially preferred an in-person visit when out-of-pocket costs were not a factor, 49.8% still preferred in-person care and 23.5% switched to a video visit when confronted with higher relative costs for in-person care. In contrast, among those who initially preferred a video visit, only 18.9% still preferred a video visit and 61.7% switched to in-person visit when confronted with higher relative costs for video visits. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study found that participants were generally willing to use video visits but preferred in-person care, and those who preferred video visits were more sensitive to paying out-of-pocket cost. These results suggest that understanding patient preferences will help identify telehealth's role in future health care delivery.

Implementation and Sequencing of Practice Transformation in Urban Practices with Underserved Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has gained momentum as a model for primary-care health services reform. METHODS: We conducted interviews at 14 primary care practices undergoing PCMH transformation in a large urban federally qualified health center in California and used grounded theory to identify common themes and patterns. RESULTS: We found clinics pursued a common sequence of changes in PCMH transformation: Clinics began with National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) level 3 recognition, adding care coordination staff, reorganizing data flow among teams, and integrating with a centralized quality improvement and accountability infrastructure. Next, they realigned to support continuity of care. Then, clinics improved access by adding urgent care, patient portals, or extending hours. Most then improved planning and management of patient visits. Only a handful worked explicitly on improving access with same day slots, scheduling processes, and test result communication. The clinics' changes align with specific NCQA PCMH standards but also include adding physicians and services, culture changes, and improved communication with patients. CONCLUSIONS: NCQA PCMH level 3 recognition is only the beginning of a continuous improvement process to become patient centered. Full PCMH transformation took time and effort and relied on a sequential approach, with an early focus on foundational changes that included use of a robust quality improvement strategy before changes to delivery of and access to care.

Tools to Gauge Progress During Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation.

OBJECTIVES: To review tools designed to evaluate and improve the extent of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation. STUDY DESIGN: Literature search and review of tools to evaluate PCMH "medical homeness" and track progress toward practice transformation. METHODS: We conducted a literature search to identify tools designed for evaluation and quality improvement during the PCMH change process. We identified and reviewed the content of 5 publicly available PCMH survey tools used by an administrator or clinical lead to collect data at the practice level for evaluation and/or quality improvement during PCMH implementation. We assessed each tool's coverage of PCMH content, standards, and requirements. RESULTS: We found that 3 tools (Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment [PCMH-A], Primary Care Assessment Tool-Facility Edition, and Medical Home Care Coordination Survey-Healthcare Team [MHCCS-H]) are actionable for quality improvement. PCMH-A assesses the broadest array of practice capabilities and includes items pertaining to all National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH standards. MHCCS-H was the only tool to contain items on comprehensiveness of care. There was variation in emphasis on main domains, with some content areas covered by only 1 tool. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently little evidence on which PCMH tools are associated with improved quality outcomes, as relatively few longitudinal studies have been conducted. Of the 5 tools we reviewed, only PCMH-A and MHCCS-H impose a light administrative burden (less than 10 minutes to complete) and can identify specific actions to improve a given practice capability. Each tool is lacking in a particular content area: PCMH-A, for example, lacks items on comprehensiveness of care, whereas MHCCS-H lacks items addressing access to care.

Breast Implant-associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Updated Results from a Structured Expert Consultation Process.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased cases published on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), important clinical issues remain unanswered. We conducted a second structured expert consultation process to rate statements related to the diagnosis, management, and surveillance of this disease, based on their interpretation of published evidence. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of 12 experts was selected based on nominations from national specialty societies, academic department heads, and recognized researchers in the United States. RESULTS: Panelists agreed that (1) this disease should be called "BIA-ALCL"; (2) late seromas occurring >1 year after breast implantation should be evaluated via ultrasound, and if a seroma is present, the fluid should be aspirated and sent for culture, cytology, flow cytometry, and cell block to an experienced hematopathologist; (3) surgical removal of the affected implant and capsule (as completely as possible) should occur, which is sufficient to eradicate capsule-confined BIA-ALCL; (4) surveillance should consist of clinical follow-up at least every 6 months for at least 5 years and breast ultrasound yearly for at least 2 years; and (5) BIA-ALCL is generally a biologically indolent disease with a good prognosis, unless it extends beyond the capsule and/or presents as a mass. They firmly disagreed with statements that chemotherapy and radiation therapy should be given to all patients with BIA-ALCL. CONCLUSIONS: Our assessment yielded consistent results on a number of key, incompletely addressed issues regarding BIA-ALCL, but additional research is needed to support these statement ratings and enhance our understanding of the biology, treatment, and outcomes associated with this disease.

Improving antipsychotic adherence among patients with schizophrenia: savings for states.

This column presents findings of an analysis conducted to quantify the potential net savings to state budgets from interventions to improve adherence to antipsychotic drugs among patients with schizophrenia. Using a financial model based on published data, the authors estimated costs of direct medical care and criminal justice system involvement at state and national levels and validated it against findings from other cost studies. The model estimated an annual cost of $21.4 billion (in 2013 dollars) to Medicaid programs and other state agencies for people with schizophrenia. On the basis of data on the effect on outcomes of increased medication adherence, better adherence could yield annual net savings of $3.28 billion to states or $1,580 per patient per year. Innovations to improve adherence to antipsychotic drugs among schizophrenia patients can yield substantial savings in state budgets. States should consider interventions shown to increase medication adherence in this patient group.

Use of CAHPS® patient experience survey data as part of a patient-centered medical home quality improvement initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how practice leaders used Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) data in transitioning toward a patient-centered medical home (PCMH). STUDY DESIGN: Interviews conducted at 14 primary care practices within a large urban Federally Qualified Health Center in California. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight interviews were conducted with lead physicians (n=13), site clinic administrators (n=13), nurse supervisors (n=10), and executive leadership (n=2). RESULTS: Seven themes were identified on how practice leaders used CG-CAHPS data for PCMH transformation. CAHPS® was used: 1) for quality improvement (QI) and focusing changes for PCMH transformation; 2) to maintain focus on patient experience; 3) alongside other data; 4) for monitoring site-level trends and changes; 5) to identify, analyze, and monitor areas for improvement; 6) for provider-level performance monitoring and individual coaching within a transparent environment of accountability; and 7) for PCMH transformation, but changes to instrument length, reading level, and the wording of specific items were suggested. CONCLUSION: Practice leaders used CG-CAHPS data to implement QI, develop a shared vision, and coach providers and staff on performance. They described how CAHPS® helped to improve the patient experience in the PCMH model, including access to routine and urgent care, wait times, provider spending enough time and listening carefully, and courteousness of staff. Regular reporting, reviewing, and discussing of patient-experience data alongside other clinical quality and productivity measures at multilevels of the organization was critical in maximizing the use of CAHPS® data as PCMH changes were made. In sum, this study found that a system-wide accountability and data-monitoring structure relying on a standardized and actionable patient-experience survey, such as CG-CAHPS, is key to supporting the continuous QI needed for moving beyond formal PCMH recognition to maximizing primary care medical home transformation.