Telehealth Beyond COVID-19.

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, many mental health care services have been shifted from face-to-face to virtual interactions. Several health policy changes have influenced telehealth uptake during this time, including changes in technology, Internet connectivity, prescriptions, and reimbursement for services. These changes have been implemented for the duration of the pandemic, and it is unclear if all, some, or none of these new or amended policies will be retained after the pandemic has ended. Accordingly, in the wake of changing policies, mental health care providers will need to make decisions about the future of their telehealth programs. This article briefly reviews telehealth policy changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlights what providers should consider for future delivery and implementation of their telehealth programs.

Telemedicine technology and implications for reproductive office operations.

Telemedicine had been very slowly making inroads into standard clinical practice. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the rapid implementation of telemedicine across most practices. The efficiency and permanence of telemedicine services depends on a multitude of factors including technologic choices, governmental and insurance regulations, reimbursement policies, and staff and patient education and acceptance. Although challenges remain and the extent of implementation is still evolving, it is clear that telemedicine is here to stay and that all those involved in health care need to be familiar with its opportunities and challenges.

The financial and employment effects of coronavirus disease 2019 on physicians in the United States.

Although the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created havoc with the U.S healthcare system and physicians, the financial and contractual implications for physicians are now beginning to come to the forefront. Financial assistance from the federal government has mainly been received by hospitals, which have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 illness. Some physician groups have, or are, receiving assistance through a few programs, although the accelerated and advance payments have been suspended. Employed surgeons are now being furloughed, terminated, or persuaded to agree to a significant cut in pay, forego bonuses, or take leave without pay as healthcare systems and some physician groups have started to experience the consequences of halting elective procedures. Newly hired surgeons might be forced in a few cases to agree to delays in starting their employment, new amendments, changes in employment status, and other terms for fear of losing their employment. In the present report, we have explained some agreement terminology and options available to allow physicians to understand the terms of their employment agreement and make their decisions after consulting with an expert healthcare attorney.

Leveraging Health Department Capacities, Partnerships, and Health Insurance for Infectious Disease Response in Massachusetts, 2014-2018.

Policies facilitating integration of public health programs can improve the public health response, but the literature on approaches to integration across multiple system levels is limited. We describe the efforts of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to integrate its HIV, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted infection (STI), and tuberculosis response through policies that mandated contracted organizations to submit specimens for testing to the Massachusetts State Public Health Laboratory; co-test blood specimens for HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and syphilis; integrate HIV, viral hepatitis, and STI disease surveillance and case management in a single data system; and implement an integrated infectious disease drug assistance program. From 2014 through 2018, the number of tests performed by the Massachusetts State Public Health Laboratory increased from 16 321 to 33 674 for HIV, from 11 054 to 33 670 for HCV, and from 19 169 to 30 830 for syphilis. Service contracts enabled rapid response to outbreaks of HIV, hepatitis A, and hepatitis B. Key challenges included lack of a billing infrastructure at the Massachusetts State Public Health Laboratory; the need to complete negotiations with insurers and to establish a retained revenue account to receive health insurance reimbursements for testing services; and time to train testing providers in phlebotomy for required testing. Investing in laboratory infrastructure; creating billing mechanisms to maximize health insurance reimbursement; proactively engaging providers, community members, and other stakeholders; and building capacity to transform practices are needed. Using multilevel policy approaches to integrate the public health response to HIV, STI, viral hepatitis, and tuberculosis is feasible and adaptable to other public health programs.

Early Hospital Readmission (EHR) in kidney transplantation: a review article / Readmissão Hospitalar Precoce no transplante renal: artigo de revisão

Abstract Early hospital readmission (EHR), defined as all readmissions within 30 days of initial hospital discharge, is a health care quality measure. It is influenced by the demographic characteristics of the population at risk, the multidisciplinary approach for hospital discharge, the access, coverage, and comprehensiveness of the health care system, and reimbursement policies. EHR is associated with higher morbidity, mortality, and increased health care costs. Monitoring EHR enables the identification of hospital and outpatient healthcare weaknesses and the implementation of corrective interventions. Among kidney transplant recipients in the USA, EHR ranges between 18 and 47%, and is associated with one-year increased mortality and graft loss. One study in Brazil showed an incidence of 19.8% of EHR. The main causes of readmission were infections and surgical and metabolic complications. Strategies to reduce early hospital readmission are therefore essential and should consider the local factors, including socio-economic conditions, epidemiology and endemic diseases, and mobility.

Resumo A Readmissão Hospitalar Precoce (RH), definida como todas as readmissões dentro de 30 dias após a alta hospitalar inicial, é uma métrica da qualidade hospitalar. É influenciada pelas características demográficas da população em risco, pela abordagem multidisciplinar da alta hospitalar inicial, pelo acesso, pela cobertura e pela abrangência do Sistema de Saúde e pelas políticas de reembolso. A readmissão hospitalar precoce está associada a maior morbidade, mortalidade e aumento dos custos com saúde. O monitoramento da RH permite a identificação das fragilidades hospitalares e ambulatoriais e a implementação de intervenções corretivas. Entre os receptores de transplante renal nos EUA, a RH varia entre 18% e 47% e está associada a maior mortalidade e perda do enxerto no primeiro ano do transplante. Um estudo no Brasil mostrou uma incidência de 19,8% de RH. As principais causas de readmissão foram infecções e complicações cirúrgicas e metabólicas. As estratégias para reduzir a readmissão hospitalar precoce são, portanto, essenciais e devem considerar o ambiente local, incluindo condições socioeconômicas, epidemiologia local, doenças e mobilidade endêmicas.

COVID-19 financial resources for physicians.

The appropriate focus in managing the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has been addressing access and delivery of care to the population affected by the outbreak. All sectors of the U.S. economy have been significantly affected, including physicians. Physician groups of all specialties and sizes have experienced the financial effects of the pandemic. Hospitals have received billions of dollars to support and enable them to manage emergencies and cover the costs of the disruption. However, many vascular surgeons are under great financial pressure because of the postponement of all nonemergency procedures. The federal government has announced a myriad of programs in the form of grants and loans to reimburse physicians for some of their expenses and loss of revenue. It is more than likely that unless the public health emergency subsides significantly, many practices will experience dire consequences without additional financial assistance. We have attempted to provide a concise listing of such programs and resources available to assist vascular surgeons who are small businesses in accessing these opportunities.

The Economic Burden of Out-of-Pocket Expenses for Plastic Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance reimbursement structure has evolved, with patients becoming increasingly responsible for their health care costs through rising out-of-pocket expenses. High levels of cost sharing can lead to delays in access to care, influence treatment decisions, and cause financial distress for patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing the most common outpatient reconstructive plastic surgery operations were identified using Truven MarketScan databases from 2009 to 2017. Total cost of the surgery paid to the insurer and out-of-pocket expenses, including deductible, copayment, and coinsurance, were calculated. Multivariable generalized linear modeling with log link and gamma distribution was used to predict adjusted total and out-of-pocket expenses. All costs were inflation-adjusted to 2017 dollars. RESULTS: The authors evaluated 3,165,913 outpatient plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures between 2009 and 2017. From 2009 to 2017, total costs had a significant increase of 25 percent, and out-of-pocket expenses had a significant increase of 54 percent. Using generalized linear modeling, procedures performed in outpatient hospitals conferred an additional $1999 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1978 to $2020) and $259 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $254 to $264) compared with office procedures. Ambulatory surgical center procedures conferred an additional $1698 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1677 to $1718) and $279 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $273 to $285) compared with office procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For outpatient plastic surgery procedures, out-of-pocket expenses are increasing at a faster rate than total costs, which may have implications for access to care and timing of surgery. Providers should realize the increasing burden of out-of-pocket expenses and the effect of surgical location on patients' costs when possible.

Early Hospital Readmission (EHR) in kidney transplantation: a review article.

Early hospital readmission (EHR), defined as all readmissions within 30 days of initial hospital discharge, is a health care quality measure. It is influenced by the demographic characteristics of the population at risk, the multidisciplinary approach for hospital discharge, the access, coverage, and comprehensiveness of the health care system, and reimbursement policies. EHR is associated with higher morbidity, mortality, and increased health care costs. Monitoring EHR enables the identification of hospital and outpatient healthcare weaknesses and the implementation of corrective interventions. Among kidney transplant recipients in the USA, EHR ranges between 18 and 47%, and is associated with one-year increased mortality and graft loss. One study in Brazil showed an incidence of 19.8% of EHR. The main causes of readmission were infections and surgical and metabolic complications. Strategies to reduce early hospital readmission are therefore essential and should consider the local factors, including socio-economic conditions, epidemiology and endemic diseases, and mobility.

Nobody Knew How Complicated: Constraining The President's Power To (Re)Shape Health Reform.

Beginning on inauguration day, President Trump has attempted an executive repeal of the Affordable Care Act. In doing so, he has tested the limits of presidential power. He has challenged the force of institutional and non-institutional constraints. And, ironically, he has helped boost public support for the ACA's central features. The first two sections of this article respectively consider the use of the President's tools to advance and to subvert health reform. The final two sections consider the forces constraining the administration's attempted executive repeal. I argue that the most important institutional constraint, thus far, is found in multifaceted actions by states - and not only blue states. I also highlight the force of public voices. Personal stories, public opinion, and 2018 election results - bolstered by presidential messaging - reflect growing support for government-grounded options and statutory coverage protections. Indeed, in a polarized time, "refine and revise" seems poised to supplant "repeal and replace" as the conservative focus countering liberal pressure for a common option grounded in Medicare.