Project description:PurposeTo examine characteristics associated with disparities in digital access (i.e., access to high-speed Internet via a computer or smartphone) in American rural and urban households given that digital access has a direct impact on access to telemedicine-based services.MethodsUsing the 2019 American Community Survey, we analyzed the proportions of geographic area, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status according to device and high-speed Internet access. Maximum likelihood logit estimators estimated how these factors influenced device and high-speed Internet access.FindingsOf 105,312,959 households, 32.29% were without a desktop or laptop computer with high-speed Internet (WDW), 21.51% were without a smartphone with a data plan for wireless Internet (WSW), and 14.02% were without any digital access (WDA). Nonmetropolitan households were significantly more likely to be WDA than metropolitan households (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.83-1.91). Relative to non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks (OR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.56-1.64), American Indian or Alaska natives (OR = 2.00; 95% CI: 1.82-2.19), or Hispanics (OR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.66-1.74) were significantly more likely to be WDA. When compared to households with private health insurance coverage, households WDA were significantly more likely to have no insurance (OR = 2.44; 95% CI: 2.36-2.53) or public insurance coverage (OR = 3.78; 95% CI: 3.70-3.86). Households with any digital access reported higher income and more family members living at home. Using the same predictors, similar findings were reported for households WDW or WSW.ConclusionsSignificant disparities in digital access exist among nonmetropolitan households, racial/ethnic minority households, and lower-income households. The lack of digital access has implications for the accessibility of health care services via telemedicine and thus could exacerbate health disparities.
Project description:BackgroundUnder emergency coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic regulations, Medicare granted temporary payment parity with in-person visits for audio-only (telephone) telemedicine visits. This policy was designed to expand telemedicine to patients without camera-equipped devices and broadband internet. However, audio-only telemedicine use has been substantial.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore whether the rate of audio-only telemedicine during the pandemic is related to patient access to technology or provider behavior.DesignCross-sectional analysis of the Summer and Fall 2020 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey coronavirus disease 2019 supplements, using multivariable logistic models and accounting for complex survey design.SubjectsA total of 3375 participants in the summer survey and 2633 participants in the fall 2020 were offered a telemedicine visit to replace a scheduled in-person visit by their usual care provider.MeasuresWe compared beneficiaries who were exclusively offered audio-only telemedicine to beneficiaries who were offered video telemedicine or both audio and video.ResultsWe found that among Medicare beneficiaries who were offered telemedicine to replace a scheduled in-person appointment, ~35% were exclusively offered audio-only. 65.8% of beneficiaries exclusively offered audio-only reported having a smartphone/tablet and home internet. After controlling for personal access to technology, Hispanic [adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.09, P<0.001], dually eligible (AOR=1.63, P=0.002), nonprimary English speaking (AOR=1.64, P<0.001), and nonmetro beneficiaries (AOR=1.71, P=0.003) were more likely to be offered audio-only during July-November 2020.ConclusionsThese findings suggest audio-only telemedicine use during the pandemic is only partially related to patient access to technology. Policymakers must work to both expand programs that provide smartphones and broadband internet to disparity communities and telemedicine infrastructure to providers.
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 disproportionately impacts the elderly, particularly racial/ethnic minorities and those with low socioeconomic status (SES). These latter groups may also have higher vaccine hesitancy. We aim to evaluate if access to care improves COVID-19 vaccination rates and improves health disparities.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare patients receiving care in a high-touch capitated network across ten states. We collected type and date of COVID-19 vaccine and demographic and clinical data from the inpatient and outpatient electronic health records and socioeconomic status from the US census. Our primary outcome was completing vaccination using logistic regression.ResultsOur cohort included 93,224 patients enrolled in the network during the study period. Sixty nine percent of all enrolled patients completed full vaccination. Those who completed vaccination did it with Pfizer (46%), Moderna (49%), and Jannsen (4.6%) vaccines. In adjusted models, we found that the following characteristics increased the odds of being vaccinated: being male, increasing age, BMI, and comorbidities, being Black or Hispanic, having had the flu vaccine in 2020, and increasing number of office primary care visits. Living in a neighborhood with higher social deprivation and having dual Medicaid/Medicare enrollment decreased the odds of completing full vaccination.ConclusionsIncreasing office visit in a high-touch primary care model is associated with higher vaccination rates among elderly populations who belong to racial/ethnic minorities or have low socioeconomic status. However, lower SES and Medicaid populations continue to have difficulty in completing vaccination.Key points• High COVID-19 vaccination rates of minorities enrolled in Medicare can be achieved. • Lower socioeconomic status is associated with completing vaccination. • Increasing office visits can lead to higher vaccination rates.
Project description:IntroductionSuicidality is higher for gender minorities than the general population, yet little is known about suicidality in disabled or older adult gender minorities.MethodsThis study used 2009-2014 Medicare claims to identify people with gender identity-related diagnosis codes (disabled, n=6,678; older adult, n=2,018) and compared their prevalence of suicidality with a 5% random non-gender minority beneficiary sample (disabled, n=535,801; older adult, n=1,700,008). Correlates of suicidality were assessed (via chi-square) for each of the 4 participant groups separately, and then disparities within eligibility status (disabled or older adult) were assessed using logistic regression models, adjusting first for age and mental health chronic conditions and then additionally for Medicaid eligibility, race/ethnicity, or U.S. region (each separately). The primary hypotheses were that gender minority beneficiaries would have higher suicidality but that suicidality disparities would persist after adjusting for covariates. Data were analyzed between 2017 and 2019.ResultsGender minority beneficiaries had higher unadjusted suicidality than non-gender minority beneficiaries in the disabled cohort (18.5% vs 7.1%, p<0.001). Significant suicidality predictors in all 4 groups included the following: age (except in older adult gender minorities), Medicaid eligibility, depression or behavioral health conditions, avoidable hospitalizations, and violence victimization. In age- and mental health-adjusted logistic regression models, gender minorities had higher odds of suicidality than non-gender minority beneficiaries (disabled, OR=1.95, p<0.0001; older adult, OR=2.10, p<0.0001). Disparities were not attenuated after adjusting for Medicaid eligibility, race/ethnicity, or region.ConclusionsHeightened suicidality among identified gender minority Medicare beneficiaries highlights a pressing need to identify and reduce barriers to wellness in this population.
Project description:Many neighborhoods with concentrated racial and ethnic minority older adult populations experience high neighborhood disadvantage. Yet, to date, no studies have analyzed how neighborhood disadvantage affects the relationship between race and hospitalization among older adults. To fill this gap, we examined if neighborhood disadvantage moderates the relationship between race and hospitalization among older adults in the United States. Medicare claims data from 2018 on 530 962 beneficiary hospitalizations were merged with neighborhood data, and regression models assessed if the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) moderated the association between race and hospitalization. At the highest ADI score, the odds ratio (OR) for hospitalization for Black compared with White beneficiaries was the lowest (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.89-1.04). At the lowest ADI score, the OR for hospitalization for Black compared with White beneficiaries was the highest (OR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.09-1.29). When Black and White beneficiaries reside in severely deprived areas, the disparity in their outcomes is narrower. However, when they reside in areas with more advantages, White beneficiaries experience better outcomes than Black beneficiaries. Our findings have implications for practice and policy to invest resources in communities to assure health equity.
Project description:ImportanceClinicians are increasingly adopting telemedicine in an effort to expand patient access and efficiently deliver care. However, the extent to which otolaryngologists provide telemedicine services is unclear.ObjectiveTo characterize recent trends in the use of telemedicine by otolaryngologists to deliver care to Medicare beneficiaries.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, using publicly available Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data on physicians practicing in the field of otolaryngology and benchmark specialties (dermatology and psychiatry) that provided telemedicine services to Medicare beneficiaries.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were the mean annual number of telemedicine services delivered per active physician and mean annual payment per active physician for these services. Secondary outcomes included the number, setting, and complexity of telemedicine services.ResultsBetween 2010 and 2018, otolaryngologists provided 2127 total telemedicine services (7 unique service types) to Medicare beneficiaries and received $88 574 in total payment for these services. During this period, the mean number of telemedicine services increased at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.0%, and the mean Medicare payment per otolaryngologist increased at a CAGR of 21.8%. In comparison, telemedicine use during this period generally increased at a higher rate in the fields of dermatology (mean number of services per active physician at CAGR of 13.0%; mean Medicare payment per active physician at CAGR of 12.5%) and psychiatry (mean number of services per active physician at CAGR of 25.8%; mean Medicare payment per active physician at CAGR of 26.6%). In 2018, outpatient evaluation and management visits accounted for most telemedicine services provided (337 of 353 [95.5%]) and the payments received ($17 542.13 of $18 470.47 [95.0%]) by otolaryngologists. In contrast, physicians in other specialties also provided substantial portions of telemedicine services in the inpatient (psychiatry, 18 403 of 198 478 [9.3%]; dermatology, 231 of 1034 [22.3%]) and skilled nursing facility settings (psychiatry, 14 690 of 198 478 [7.4%]; dermatology, 46 of 1034 [4.4%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that the extent to which otolaryngologists used telemedicine to deliver care to Medicare beneficiaries between 2010 and 2018 was rare. Although there was relative growth in the use of telemedicine by otolaryngologists during this period, absolute growth remained low. Policy makers and provider organizations should support otolaryngologists in the adoption of telemedicine technologies, especially while coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) viral suppression efforts necessitate prolonged restriction of physical clinic throughput.
Project description:ImportanceLittle is known about how telemedicine use was evolving before the broad changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Understanding prepandemic patterns of telemedicine use can inform ongoing debates on the future of telemedicine policy.ObjectiveTo describe trends in telemedicine utilization among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries before the COVID-19 pandemic and the specialties of clinicians providing telemedicine.Design setting and participantsThis was a cross-sectional study and descriptive analysis of telemedicine utilization by 10.4 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2019. Data analysis was performed from June 6, 2019, to July 30, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresRates of telemedicine utilization, characteristics of beneficiaries who received telemedicine in 2010 to 2019, and specialties of clinicians delivering telemedicine.ResultsOf 10.4 million rural Medicare beneficiaries, telemedicine was used by 91 483 individuals (age ≥65 years, 47 135 [51.5%]; women, 51 476 [56.3%]; and White, 76 467 [83.6%] individuals) in 2019. In 2010 to 2019, telemedicine visits grew by 23.1% annually. A total of 0.9% of all fee-for-service rural beneficiaries had a telemedicine visit in 2019 compared with 0.2% in 2010. In 2019, there were 257 979 telemedicine visits or 34.8 visits per 1000 rural beneficiaries and most (75.9%) of these visits were for mental health conditions. Patients with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia (3.0% of rural beneficiaries) received 40% of all telemedicine visits in 2019. Some traditionally disadvantaged and underserved groups comprised a larger share of telemedicine users than nonusers in 2019, such as those dually insured with Medicaid (56.9% of users vs 18.6% of nonusers; adjusted odd ratio, 3.83; 95% CI, 3.77-3.89). In 2010 to 2019, telemedicine for mental health conditions shifted away from psychiatrists (71.2% to 35.8% of all telemedicine visits) to nonphysician clinicians, eg, nurse practitioners, psychologists, and social workers (21.4% to 57.2%). There was wide variation in telemedicine utilization in 2019 across counties: median (IQR), 16.0 (2.5-51.4) telemedicine users per 1000 beneficiaries). In 891 counties (29% of all US counties), at least 10% of beneficiaries with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia used a telemedicine service in 2019.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of telemedicine utilization before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was sustained growth in telemedicine visits among rural beneficiaries covered by the Medicare program, especially care delivered by nurse practitioners and other nonphysician clinicians. The prepandemic model of telemedicine provided in local health care settings may be a viable modality to maintain in rural communities.
Project description:While the rapid expansion of telemedicine in response to the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the impressive ability of health systems to adapt quickly to new complexities, it also raises important concerns about how to implement these novel modalities equitably. As the healthcare system becomes increasingly virtual, it risks widening disparities among marginalized populations who have worse health outcomes at baseline and limited access to the resources necessary for the effective use of telemedicine. In this article, we review recent policy changes and outline important recommendations that governments and health care systems can adopt to improve access to telemedicine and to tailor the use of these technologies to best meet the needs of underserved patients. We suggest that by making health equity integral to the implementation of telemedicine now, it will help to ensure that all can benefit from its use going forward and that this will be increasingly integral to care delivery.
Project description:Anticipating a growing need for health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded telemedicine coverage in the United States on March 6, 2020. In this study we used roughly thirty million Medicare fee-for-service claims to quantify outpatient telemedicine use before and after the Medicare telemedicine coverage waiver and to examine the association of telemedicine use with the Area Deprivation Index, a comprehensive measure of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage. Before the waiver, 0.42 percent of patients had at least one outpatient telemedicine visit, with no significant differences between people residing in the most versus the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. With the waiver, 9.97 percent of patients had at least one outpatient telemedicine visit, with the highest odds of utilization seen for people residing in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. After adjustment, our data suggest that the coverage waiver increased access to telemedicine for all Medicare populations, including people residing in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, although the odds of use were persistently lower with increasing age. Overall, these findings are encouraging, but they illuminate a need for targeted interventions to improve telemedicine access further.
Project description:An estimated 90% of people living with Parkinson's disease (PD) in the US are covered by Medicare health insurance. How these beneficiaries use and engage the health care system is important to understand in the face of a rapidly growing PD population. Here, we analyzed health care utilization patterns of those with a PD diagnosis enrolled in Medicare in 2019. By our estimates, PD beneficiaries number 685,116 or 1.2% of the total Medicare population. Compared to the overall Medicare population, 56.3% are male (vs 45.6%), 77.9% over age 70 (vs 57.1%), 14.7% people of color (vs 20.7%), and 16.0% are rural residents (vs 17.5%). Our analysis identified significant disparities in care. Surprisingly, 40% of PD beneficiaries (n = 274,046) did not see a neurologist at all during the calendar year and only 9.1% visited a movement disorder specialist (MDS). Few Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with PD use recommended services such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy. People of color and rural residents were least likely to access a neurologist or therapy services. Despite 52.9% of beneficiaries being diagnosed with depression, only 1.8% had a clinical psychology visit. Our findings emphasize the need for further research on population-specific barriers to accessing PD-related health care.