Interstate Telemedicine for Urologic Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: US states eased licensing restrictions on telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing interstate use. As waivers expire, optimal uses of telemedicine must be assessed to inform policy, legislation, and clinical care. We assessed whether telemedicine visits provided the same patient experience as in-person visits, stratified by in- vs out-of-state residence, and examined the financial burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients seen in person and via telemedicine for urologic cancer care at a major regional cancer center received a survey after their first appointment (August 2019-June 2022) on satisfaction with care, perceptions of communication during their visit, travel time, travel costs, and days of work missed. RESULTS: Surveys were completed for 1058 patient visits (N = 178 in-person, N = 880 telemedicine). Satisfaction rates were high for all visit types, both interstate and in-state care (mean score 60.1-60.8 [maximum 63], P > .05). More patients convening interstate telemedicine would repeat that modality (71%) than interstate in-person care (61%) or in-state telemedicine (57%). Patients receiving interstate care had significantly higher travel costs (median estimated visit costs $200, IQR $0-$800 vs median $0, IQR $0-$20 for in-state care, P < .001); 55% of patients receiving interstate in-person care required plane travel and 60% required a hotel stay. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine appointments may increase access for rural-residing patients with cancer. Satisfaction outcomes among patients with urologic cancer receiving interstate care were similar to those of patients cared for in state; costs were markedly lower. Extending interstate exemptions beyond COVID-19 licensing waivers would permit continued delivery of high-quality urologic cancer care to rural-residing patients.

Telemedicine for Multidisciplinary Urologic Cancer Care: A Prospective Single Institution Study.

BACKGROUND: We rapidly implemented a telemedicine Multidisciplinary Urologic Cancer Clinic (MDUCC) at the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance during the peak of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency to maintain our ability to provide multidisciplinary cancer care. We report our experiences though assessment of patient-reported outcomes from our telemedicine MDUCC. METHODS: Video visits with a urologic oncologist, medical oncologist, and radiation oncologist were conducted in the same format as our in-person MDUCC. We prospectively collected patient demographic and clinical data. Patients were invited to complete a post-visit survey that assessed satisfaction, provider trust, travel time, and costs of the telemedicine visit. We estimated travel distances and times from each patient's home to our clinic. RESULTS: Among invited patients, twenty-four patients completed a survey after their telemedicine MDUCC visit. Twenty patients (83%) were at home during the visit. Most (85%) were men, Caucasian (79%), and were being seen in our Bladder Cancer MDUCC (83%). All twenty-four patients responded that they would be willing to have future appointments via telemedicine; eighteen patients (75%) strongly agreed that the encounter was high quality; 19 patients strongly agreed that they were satisfied with their visit. Patients saved an estimated average one-way travel distance of 145 miles and one-way travel time of 179 minutes to convene a telemedicine visit. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine MDUCCs are feasible and effective in providing access to multidisciplinary urologic cancer care. Patient satisfaction was high, and many patients were spared a substantial travel burden. Telemedicine may continue to be leveraged to improve access to multidisciplinary urologic cancer care.