Trends in Use of Telehealth Among Health Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, June 26-November 6, 2020.

Telehealth can facilitate access to care, reduce risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]), conserve scarce medical supplies, and reduce strain on health care capacity and facilities while supporting continuity of care. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health centers* expanded telehealth† services during the COVID-19 pandemic (1). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services eliminated geographic restrictions and enhanced reimbursement so that telehealth services-enabled health centers could expand telehealth services and continue providing care during the pandemic (2,3). CDC and HRSA analyzed data from 245 health centers that completed a voluntary weekly HRSA Health Center COVID-19 Survey§ for 20 consecutive weeks to describe trends in telehealth use. During the weeks ending June 26-November 6, 2020, the overall percentage of weekly health care visits conducted via telehealth (telehealth visits) decreased by 25%, from 35.8% during the week ending June 26 to 26.9% for the week ending November 6, averaging 30.2% over the study period. Weekly telehealth visits declined when COVID-19 cases were decreasing and plateaued as cases were increasing. Health centers in the South and in rural areas consistently reported the lowest average percentage of weekly telehealth visits over the 20 weeks, compared with health centers in other regions and urban areas. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, maintaining and expanding telehealth services will be critical to ensuring access to care while limiting exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

Igniting Harmonized Digital Clinical Quality Measurement through Terminology, CQL, and FHIR.

BACKGROUND: Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) seek to quantify the adherence of health care to evidence-based standards. This requires a high level of consistency to reduce the effort of data collection and ensure comparisons are valid. Yet, there is considerable variability in local data capture, in the use of data standards and in implemented documentation processes, so organizations struggle to implement quality measures and extract data reliably for comparison across patients, providers, and systems. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we discuss opportunities for harmonization within and across eCQMs; specifically, at the level of the measure concept, the logical clauses or phrases, the data elements, and the codes and value sets. METHODS: The authors, experts in measure development, quality assurance, standards and implementation, reviewed measure structure and content to describe the state of the art for measure analysis and harmonization. Our review resulted in the identification of four measure component levels for harmonization. We provide examples for harmonization of each of the four measure components based on experience with current quality measurement programs including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eCQM programs. RESULTS: In general, there are significant issues with lack of harmonization across measure concepts, logical phrases, and data elements. This magnifies implementation problems, confuses users, and requires more elaborate data mapping and maintenance. CONCLUSION: Comparisons using semantically equivalent data are needed to accurately measure performance and reduce workflow interruptions with the aim of reducing evidence-based care gaps. It comes as no surprise that electronic health record designed for purposes other than quality improvement and used within a fragmented care delivery system would benefit greatly from common data representation, measure harmony, and consistency. We suggest that by enabling measure authors and implementers to deliver consistent electronic quality measure content in four key areas; the industry can improve quality measurement.