Telemental Health Services Usage and Association with Health Care Utilization and Expenditures Among Vulnerable Medicare Beneficiaries in 2019: A Comparative Study Using Propensity Score Matching.

Background: Telemental health (TMH) offers a promising approach to managing major depressive disorder (MDD). The objective of our work was to evaluate TMH usage among a vulnerable population of MDD Medicare beneficiaries and its association with health care utilization and expenditures. Methods: This cohort study analyzed 2019 Mississippi Medicare fee-for-service data for adult beneficiaries with MDD. Subjects were matched by the use of TMH following 1:1 propensity score matching. Comparisons between TMH and non-TMH cohorts were made on health care utilization and expenditure outcomes, adjusting for provider types postmatching. Results: Among 7,673 identified beneficiaries, 551 used TMH and 7,122 did not. Prematching, TMH cohort showed greater proportions of dual beneficiaries, rural residents, subjects with income below $40,000, those with disability entitlement, and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores, compared to the non-TMH cohort (all p < 0.001). Moreover, the TMH cohort had fewer outpatient visits, but more inpatient admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and higher medical, pharmacy, and total expenditures (all p < 0.001). Postmatching, TMH was associated with a 25% reduction in outpatient visits (p < 0.001) and a 20% reduction in pharmacy expenditures (p = 0.01), with no significant effect on inpatient admissions, ED visits, medical expenditures, or total expenditures. Conclusions: These results underscore the potential of TMH in enhancing accessible health care services for vulnerable populations and affordable services for Medicare. Our results provide a robust baseline for future policy discussions concerning TMH. Future studies should consider identifying barriers to TMH use among vulnerable populations and ensuring equitable and high-quality patient care.

Framework for Evaluating and Developing Sustainable Telehealth Programs.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and public health emergency, telehealth programs vastly expanded with strong support from various federal and state agencies. However, the uncertainty regarding future reimbursement policies for telehealth services has resulted in concerns about long-term sustainability of innovative health service delivery models beyond the financial support. Given the limited literature on creating telehealth programs with long-term sustainability in consideration, we have developed a framework for gathering appropriate data during various stages of program implementation to evaluate clinical effectiveness and economic sustainability that is applicable across various settings, with additional attention to health equity. Recognizing the difficulty of sustaining telehealth programs solely through a fee-for-service payment model, we encourage all telehealth stakeholders, especially payers and policymakers, to consider cost-effectiveness of telehealth programs and support alternate payment models for ensuring long-term sustainability.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized study comparing radiosurgery with radiosurgery and whole brain radiation therapy in patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we compare 2 treatment options and determine cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. METHODS: We carried out a decision analysis populated with data from patients with brain metastasis in a concurrent trial randomized to either stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and observation or SRS and whole brain radiation therapy. Outcomes included actual life years saved (LYS), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs used were from the healthcare perspective and utilities were captured through a time-trade-off method, using 10-year, 5-year, and 1-year time horizons. One-way sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine robustness of the decision analysis model. RESULTS: Compared with SRS and whole brain radiation therapy, SRS and observation not only had a higher average cost ($74,000 vs $119,000, respectively) but also a higher average effectiveness (0.60 LYS vs 1.64 LYS, respectively) with an ICER of $44,231/LYS or $41,783/QALY (with utilities captured using a 10-year horizon). Slightly higher ICER estimates were achieved with utilities captured using the other time horizons ($43,280/QALY and $44,064/QALY, respectively). Sensitivity analysis showed that the following variables had the highest impact on the ICER: probability of no recurrence in recursive-partitioning analysis class 2 after SRS and observation; probability of being alive after SRS and observation in recursive-partitioning analysis class 2 and being treated for recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other interventions in the $50,000 to $100,000/QALY cost-effectiveness range, the application of SRS and observation, with subsequent neurosurgical management of recurrences, is shown to be a reasonable treatment modality for brain metastases.