Racial and Ethnic Differences in Telemedicine Use.

Importance: Individuals of racial and ethnic minority groups may be less likely to use telemedicine in part due to lack of access to technology (ie, digital divide). To date, some studies have found less telemedicine use by individuals of racial and ethnic minority groups compared with White individuals, and others have found the opposite. What explains these different findings is unclear. Objective: To quantify racial and ethnic differences in the receipt of telemedicine and total visits with and without accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics and geography. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included individuals who were continuously enrolled in traditional Medicare from March 2020 to February 2022 or until death. Exposure: Race and ethnicity, which was categorized as Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, White non-Hispanic, other (defined as American Indian/Pacific Islander, Alaska Native, and Asian), and unknown/missing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total telemedicine visits (audio-video or audio); total visits (telemedicine or in-person) per individual during the study period. Multivariable models were used that sequentially adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics and geographic area to examine their association with differences in telemedicine and total visit utilization by documented race and ethnicity. Results: In this national sample of 14 305 819 individuals, 7.4% reported that they were Black, 5.6% Hispanic, and 4.2% other race. In unadjusted results, compared with White individuals, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals of other racial groups had 16.7 (95% CI, 16.1-17.3), 32.9 (95% CI, 32.3-33.6), and 20.9 (95% CI, 20.2-21.7) more telemedicine visits per 100 beneficiaries, respectively. After adjustment for clinical and demographic characteristics and geography, compared with White individuals, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals of other racial groups had 7.9 (95% CI, -8.5 to -7.3), 13.2 (95% CI, -13.9 to -12.6), and 9.2 (95% CI, -10.0 to -8.5) fewer telemedicine visits per 100 beneficiaries, respectively. In unadjusted and fully adjusted models, and in 2019 and the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals of other racial groups continued to have fewer total visits than White individuals. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study of US Medicare enrollees suggest that although nationally, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals of other racial groups received more telemedicine visits during the pandemic and disproportionately lived in geographic regions with higher telemedicine use, after controlling for geographic region, Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals of other racial groups received fewer telemedicine visits than White individuals.

Changes in Healthcare Spending Attributable to High Deductible Health Plan Offer Among Enrollees with Comorbid Substance Use Disorder and Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The rise in prevalence of high deductible health plans (HDHPs) in the United States may raise concerns for high-need, high-utilization populations such as those with comorbid chronic conditions. In this study, we examine changes in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending attributable to HDHPs for enrollees with comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: We used de-identified administrative claims data from 2007 to 2017. SUD and CVD were defined using algorithms of ICD 9 and 10 codes and HEDIS guidelines. The main outcome measures of interest were spending measure for all non-SUD/CVD-related services, SUD-specific services, and CVD-specific services, for all services and medications specifically. We assessed both total and OOP spending. We used an intent-to-treat two-part model approach to model spending and computed the marginal effect of HDHP offer as both the dollar change and percent change in spending attributable to HDHP offer. RESULTS: Our sample included 33,684 enrollee-years and was predominantly white and male with a mean age of 53 years. The sample had high demonstrated substantial healthcare utilization with 94% using any non-SUD/CVD services, and 84% and 78% using SUD and CVD services, respectively. HDHP offer was associated with a 17.0% (95% CI = [0.07, 0.27] increase in OOP spending for all non-SUD/CVD services, a 21.1% (95% CI = [0.11, 0.31]) increase in OOP spending for all SUD-specific services, and a 13.1% (95% CI = [0.04, 0.23]) increase in OOP spending for all CVD-specific services. HDHP offer was also associated with a significant increase in OOP spending on non-SUD/CVD-specific medications and SUD-specific medications, but not CVD-specific medications. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that while HDHPs do not change overall levels of annual spending among enrollees with comorbid CVD and SUD, they may increase the financial burden of healthcare services by raising OOP costs, which could negatively impact this high-need and high-utilization population.

Use of Telemedicine and Quality of Care Among Medicare Enrollees With Serious Mental Illness.

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a large fraction of mental health care was provided via telemedicine. The implications of this shift in care for use of mental health service and quality of care have not been characterized. Objective: To compare changes in care patterns and quality during the first year of the pandemic among Medicare beneficiaries with serious mental illness (schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder) cared for at practices with higher vs lower telemedicine use. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder were attributed to specialty mental health practices that delivered the majority of their mental health care in 2019. Practices were categorized into 3 groups based on the proportion of telemental health visits provided during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020-February 2021): lowest use (0%-49%), middle use (50%-89%), or highest use (90%-100%). Across the 3 groups of practices, differential changes in patient outcomes were calculated from the year before the pandemic started to the year after. These changes were also compared with differential changes from a 2-year prepandemic period. Analyses were conducted in November 2022. Exposure: Practice-level use of telemedicine during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the total number of mental health visits (telemedicine plus in-person) per person. Secondary outcomes included the number of acute hospital and emergency department encounters, all-cause mortality, and quality outcomes, including adherence to antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medications (as measured by the number of months of medication fills) and 7- and 30-day outpatient follow-up rates after discharge for a mental health hospitalization. Results: The pandemic cohort included 120 050 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [14.5] years; 66 638 females [55.5%]) with serious mental illness. Compared with prepandemic changes and relative to patients receiving care at practices with the lowest telemedicine use: patients receiving care at practices in the middle and highest telemedicine use groups had 1.11 (95% CI, 0.45-1.76) and 1.94 (95% CI, 1.28-2.59) more mental health visits per patient per year (or 7.5% [95% CI, 3.0%-11.9%] and 13.0% [95% CI, 8.6%-17.4%] more mental health visits per year, respectively). Among patients of practices with middle and highest telemedicine use, changes in adherence to antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medications were -0.4% (95% CI, -1.3% to 0.5%) and -0.1% (95% CI, -1.0% to 0.8%), and hospital and emergency department use for any reason changed by 2.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 6.2%) and 2.8% (95% CI, -1.2% to 6.8%), respectively. There were no significant differential changes in postdischarge follow-up or mortality rates according to the level of telemedicine use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with serious mental illness, patients receiving care from practices that had a higher level of telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic had more mental health visits per year compared with prepandemic levels, with no differential changes in other observed quality metrics over the same period.

Choice of high-deductible health plans among enrollees with a substance use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) expose enrollees to increased out-of-pocket costs for their medical care, which can exacerbate the undertreatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the factors that influence whether an enrollee with SUD chooses an HDHP are not well understood. In this study, we examine the factors associated with an individual with an SUD's decision to enroll in an HDHP. METHODS: Using de-identified administrative commercial claims and enrollment data from OptumLabs (2007-2017), we identified individuals at employers offering at least one HDHP and one non-HDHP plan. We modeled whether an enrollee chose an HDHP using linear regression on plan and enrollee demographic characteristics. Key plan characteristics included whether a plan had a health savings account (HSA) or a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA). Key demographic variables included age, race/ethnicity, census block income range, census block highest educational attainment, and sex. We separately investigate new enrollment decisions (i.e., not previously enrolled in an HDHP) and re-enrollment decisions, as well as decisions among single enrollees and families of differing sizes. The study also adjusted models for additional plan characteristics, employer and year fixed effects, and census division. Robust standard errors were clustered at the employer level. RESULTS: The sample comprised 30,832 plans and 318,334 enrollees. Among enrollees with new enrollment decisions, 24.6 % chose an HDHP; 93.8 % of HDHP enrollees chose to re-enroll in an HDHP. The study found the presence of a plan HRA to be associated with a higher probability of new and re-enrollment in an HDHP. We found that older enrollees with SUD were less likely to newly enroll in an HDHP, while enrollees who were non-White, living in lower-income census blocks, and living in lower educational attainment census blocks were more likely to newly enroll in an HDHP. Higher levels of health care utilization in the prior year were associated with a lower probability of newly enrolling in an HDHP but associated with a higher probability of re-enrolling. CONCLUSION: Given the emerging evidence that HDHPs may discourage SUD treatment, greater HDHP enrollment could exacerbate health disparities.

Provision of evaluation and management visits by nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the USA from 2013 to 2019: cross-sectional time series study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the proportion of healthcare visits are delivered by nurse practitioners and physician assistants versus physicians and how this has changed over time and by clinical setting, diagnosis, and patient demographics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional time series study. SETTING: National data from the traditional Medicare insurance program in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Of people using Medicare (ie, those older than 65 years, permanently disabled, and people with end stage renal disease), a 20% random sample was taken. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of physician, nurse practitioner, and physician assistant visits in the outpatient and skilled nursing facility settings delivered by physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, and how this proportion varies by type of visit and diagnosis. RESULTS: From 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019, 276 million visits were included in the sample. The proportion of all visits delivered by nurse practitioners and physician assistants in a year increased from 14.0% (95% confidence interval 14.0% to 14.0%) to 25.6% (25.6% to 25.6%). In 2019, the proportion of visits delivered by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant varied across conditions, ranging from 13.2% for eye disorders and 20.4% for hypertension to 36.7% for anxiety disorders and 41.5% for respiratory infections. Among all patients with at least one visit in 2019, 41.9% had one or more nurse practitioner or physician assistant visits. Compared with patients who had no visits from a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, the likelihood of receiving any care was greatest among patients who were lower income (2.9% greater), rural residents (19.7%), and disabled (5.6%). CONCLUSION: The proportion of visits delivered by nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the USA is increasing rapidly and now accounts for a quarter of all healthcare visits.

Prescribing Medications for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Physician Decision Making.

PURPOSE: Over 29 million Americans have alcohol use disorder (AUD). Though there are effective medications for AUD (MAUD) that can be prescribed within primary care, they are underutilized. We aimed to explore how primary care physicians familiar with MAUD make prescribing decisions and to identify reasons for underuse of MAUD within primary care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 primary care physicians recruited from a large online database of medical professionals. Physicians had to have started a patient on MAUD within the last 6 months in an outpatient setting. Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was informed by the theory of planned behavior. RESULTS: Physicians endorsed that it is challenging to prescribe MAUD due to several reasons, including: (1) somewhat negative personal beliefs about medication effectiveness and likelihood of patient adherence; (2) competing demands in primary care that make MAUD a lower priority; and, (3) few positive subjective norms around prescribing. To make MAUD prescribing a smaller component of their practice, physicians reported applying various rules of thumb to select patients for MAUD. These included recommending MAUD to the patients who seemed the most motivated to reduce drinking, those with the most severe AUD, and those who were also receiving other treatments for AUD. CONCLUSIONS: There is a challenging implementation context for MAUD due to competing demands within primary care. Future research should explore which strategies for identifying a subset of patients for MAUD are the most appropriate and most likely to improve population health and health equity.

High-deductible Health Plans and Nonfatal Opioid Overdose.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid-related overdose is a public health emergency in the United States. Meanwhile, high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have become more prevalent in the United States over the last 2 decades, raising concern about their potential for discouraging high-need populations, like those with opioid use disorder (OUD), from engaging in care that may mitigate the probability of overdose. This study assesses the impact of an employer offering an HDHP on nonfatal opioid overdose among commercially insured individuals with OUD in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used deidentified insurance claims data from 2007 to 2017 with 97,788 person-years. We used an intent-to-treat, difference-in-differences regression framework to estimate the change in the probability of a nonfatal opioid overdose among enrollees with OUD whose employers began offering an HDHP insurance option during the study period compared with the change among those whose employer never offered an HDHP. We also used an event-study model to account for dynamic time-varying treatment effects. RESULTS: Across both comparison and treatment groups, 2% of the sample experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose during the study period. Our primary model and robustness checks revealed no impact of HDHP offer on the probability of a nonfatal overdose. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that HDHP offer was not associated with an observed increase in the probability of nonfatal opioid overdose among commercially insured person-years with OUD. However, given the strong evidence that medications for OUD (MOUD) can reduce the risk of overdose, research should explore which facets of insurance design may impact MOUD use.

Do High-Deductible Health Plans Incentivize Changing the Timing of Substance Use Disorder Treatment?

A high-deductible health plan (HDHP) may incentivize enrollees to limit health care use at the beginning of a plan year, when they are responsible for 100% of costs, or to increase the use of care at the end of the year, when enrollees may have less cost exposure. We investigated both the impact of the deductible reset that occurs at the beginning of a plan year and the option to enroll in an HDHP on the use of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services over the course of a health plan year. We found decreases in SUD treatment use following the increase in cost exposure related to a deductible reset. There was no variation in this behavior between HDHP offer enrollees and comparison enrollees who were not offered an HDHP. These findings reinforce that cost-sharing poses a barrier to SUD care and continuity of care, which can increase the risk of adverse clinical outcomes.

Trends in Use of Medication to Treat Opioid Use Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 10 State Medicaid Programs.

Importance: Federal and state agencies granted temporary regulatory waivers to prevent disruptions in access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) during the COVID-19 pandemic, including expanding access to telehealth for MOUD. Little is known about changes in MOUD receipt and initiation among Medicaid enrollees during the pandemic. Objectives: To examine changes in receipt of any MOUD, initiation of MOUD (in-person vs telehealth), and the proportion of days covered (PDC) with MOUD after initiation from before to after declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE). Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study included Medicaid enrollees aged 18 to 64 years in 10 states from May 2019 through December 2020. Analyses were conducted from January through March 2022. Exposures: Ten months before the COVID-19 PHE (May 2019 through February 2020) vs 10 months after the PHE was declared (March through December 2020). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included receipt of any MOUD and outpatient initiation of MOUD via prescriptions and office- or facility-based administrations. Secondary outcomes included in-person vs telehealth MOUD initiation and PDC with MOUD after initiation. Results: Among a total of 8 167 497 Medicaid enrollees before the PHE and 8 181 144 after the PHE, 58.6% were female in both periods and most enrollees were aged 21 to 34 years (40.1% before the PHE; 40.7% after the PHE). Monthly rates of MOUD initiation, representing 7% to 10% of all MOUD receipt, decreased immediately after the PHE primarily due to reductions in in-person initiations (from 231.3 per 100 000 enrollees in March 2020 to 171.8 per 100 000 enrollees in April 2020) that were partially offset by increases in telehealth initiations (from 5.6 per 100 000 enrollees in March 2020 to 21.1 per 100 000 enrollees in April 2020). Mean monthly PDC with MOUD in the 90 days after initiation decreased after the PHE (from 64.5% in March 2020 to 59.5% in September 2020). In adjusted analyses, there was no immediate change (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01) or change in the trend (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01) in the likelihood of receipt of any MOUD after the PHE compared with before the PHE. There was an immediate decrease in the likelihood of outpatient MOUD initiation (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96) and no change in the trend in the likelihood of outpatient MOUD initiation (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00) after the PHE compared with before the PHE. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of Medicaid enrollees, the likelihood of receipt of any MOUD was stable from May 2019 through December 2020 despite concerns about potential COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions in care. However, immediately after the PHE was declared, there was a reduction in overall MOUD initiations, including a reduction in in-person MOUD initiations that was only partially offset by increased use of telehealth.

Impact of High Deductible Health Plans on U.S. Adults With Chronic Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain affects an estimated 20% of U.S. adults. Because high-deductible health plans have captured a growing share of the commercial insurance market, it is unknown how high-deductible health plans impact care for chronic pain. METHODS: Using 2007-2017 claims data from a large national commercial insurer, statistical analyses conducted in 2022-2023 estimated changes in enrollee outcomes before and after their firm began offering a high-deductible health plan compared with changes in outcomes in a comparison group of enrollees at firms never offering a high-deductible health plan. The sample included 757,530 commercially insured adults aged 18-64 years with headache, low back pain, arthritis, neuropathic pain, or fibromyalgia. Outcomes, measured at the enrollee year level, included the probability of receiving any chronic pain treatment, nonpharmacologic pain treatment, and opioid and nonopioid prescriptions; the number of nonpharmacologic pain treatment days; number and days' supply of opioid and nonopioid prescriptions; and total annual spending and out-of-pocket spending. RESULTS: High-deductible health plan offer was associated with a 1.2 percentage point reduction (95% CI= -1.8, -0.5) in the probability of any chronic pain treatment and an $11 increase (95% CI=$6, $15) in annual out-of-pocket spending on chronic pain treatments among those with any use, representing a 16% increase in average annual out-of-pocket spending over the pre-high deductible health plan offer annual average. Results were driven by changes in nonpharmacologic treatment use. CONCLUSIONS: By reducing the use of nonpharmacologic chronic pain treatments and marginally increasing out-of-pocket costs among those using these services, high-deductible health plans may discourage more holistic, integrated approaches to caring for patients with chronic pain conditions.

Racial Inequality in Receipt of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Since 2010, Black persons in the United States have had a greater increase in opioid overdose-related mortality than other groups, but national-level evidence characterizing racial and ethnic disparities in the use of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) is limited. METHODS: We used Medicare claims data from the 2016-2019 period for a random 40% sample of fee-for-service beneficiaries who were Black, Hispanic, or White; were eligible for Medicare owing to disability; and had an index event related to OUD (nonfatal overdose treated in an emergency department or inpatient setting, hospitalization with injection drug use-related infection, or inpatient or residential rehabilitation or detoxification care). We measured the receipt of medications to treat OUD (buprenorphine, naltrexone, and naloxone), the receipt of high-risk medications (opioid analgesics and benzodiazepines), and health care utilization, all in the 180 days after the index event. We estimated differences in outcomes according to race and ethnic group with adjustment for beneficiary age, sex, index event, count of chronic coexisting conditions, and state of residence. RESULTS: We identified 25,904 OUD-related index events among 23,370 beneficiaries, with 3937 events (15.2%) occurring among Black patients, 2105 (8.1%) among Hispanic patients, and 19,862 (76.7%) among White patients. In the 180 days after the index event, patients received buprenorphine after 12.7% of events among Black patients, after 18.7% of those among Hispanic patients, and after 23.3% of those among White patients; patients received naloxone after 14.4%, 20.7%, and 22.9%, respectively; and patients received benzodiazepines after 23.4%, 29.6%, and 37.1%, respectively. Racial differences in the receipt of medications to treat OUD did not change appreciably from 2016 to 2019 (buprenorphine receipt: after 9.1% of index events among Black patients vs. 21.6% of those among White patients in 2016, and after 14.1% vs. 25.5% in 2019). In all study groups, patients had multiple ambulatory visits in the 180 days after the index event (mean number of visits, 6.6 after events among Black patients, 6.7 after events among Hispanic patients, and 7.6 after events among White patients). CONCLUSIONS: Racial and ethnic differences in the receipt of medications to treat OUD after an index event related to this disorder among patients with disability were substantial and did not change over time. The high incidence of ambulatory visits in all groups showed that disparities persisted despite frequent health care contact. (Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Aging.).

State Policies Could Impede New Efforts to Increase Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder.

This Viewpoint discusses state policies that could impede access to medications for opioid use disorder via telemedicine.

Many Clinicians Implement Digital Equity Strategies To Treat Opioid Use Disorder.

Drawing upon a longitudinal survey of clinicians who treat patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), we report changes over time in telemedicine use, clinicians' attitudes, and digital equity strategies. Clinicians reported less use of telemedicine (both video and audio-only) in 2022 than in 2020. In March 2022, 77.0 percent of clinician respondents reported implementing digital equity strategies to help patients overcome barriers to video visits.

Telemedicine Use and Quality of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Little is known about the potential implications of the rapid transition to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Objective: To examine the association between telemedicine adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic and indicators of OUD treatment quality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed deidentified administrative claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Claims for telemedicine visits were included for both the prepandemic period (March 14, 2019, to March 13, 2020) and pandemic period (March 14, 2020, to March 13, 2021). Patients with OUD and continuous enrollment in either commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage plans were included. Clinicians who provided office-based OUD care were included and categorized into low, medium, or high telemedicine use groups. Patients were attributed to the clinician (and corresponding telemedicine use group) from whom they received a plurality of OUD visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 4 outcomes were all outpatient visits, OUD visits (in person vs telemedicine) within 90 days of an index visit, medications for OUD (MOUD) prescribing, and OUD-related clinical events (including drug overdose, inpatient detoxification and rehabilitation center stay, or injection drug use-related infections). Results: The analysis included 11 801 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.9 [15.7] years; 5902 males [50.0%]) who were treated by 1768 clinicians. Clinicians with low vs high telemedicine use conducted a mean (SD) of 2.1% (2.5%) vs 69.5% (18.6%) of their office visits virtually in the pandemic period. While telemedicine use for OUD increased significantly from the prepandemic to pandemic periods, total OUD visit volume (in person plus telemedicine) per patient episode remained stable among both high (2.6 to 2.7 visits per patient episode) and low (3.1 to 3.3 visits per patient episode) telemedicine use groups. In adjusted analyses comparing the prepandemic with pandemic periods, there was no differential change in MOUD initiation (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.19), MOUD days' supply (differential change in days' supply, -0.27; 95% CI, -1.84 to 1.30), or OUD-related clinical events (adjusted OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.24) among patients who were treated by clinicians in low vs high telemedicine use groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study revealed that clinical outcomes were similar among patients who were treated by clinicians with high and low telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that telemedicine is a comparable alternative to in-person OUD care. There was no evidence that telemedicine was associated with increased access to or improved quality of OUD treatment.

Specialty care after transition to long-term care in nursing home.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents face many barriers to accessing specialist physician outpatient care. However, little data exists on how specialty care use changes when individuals transition to a nursing home in the US. METHODS: We studied specialist outpatient visits for new long-term care (LTC) residents within 1 year before and after their transition to nursing home residence using the Minimum Data Set v3.0 (MDS) and a 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service claims in 2014-2018. To focus on residents requiring specialty care at baseline, we limited the cohort to residents with specialty care in the 13-24 months before LTC transition. We then measured the proportion of residents receiving at least one visit in the 12 months before the transition and the 12 months after the transition. We also examined subgroups of residents with a prior diagnosis likely requiring long-term specialty care (e.g., multiple sclerosis). Finally, we examined whether there was continuity of care within the same specialty care provider. RESULTS: Among 39,288 new LTC transitions identified in 2016-2017, 17,877 (45.5%) residents had a prior specialist visit 13-24 months before the transition. Among them, the proportion of residents with specialty visits decreased consistently in all specialties in the 12 months after the transition, ranging from a relative decrease of 14.4% for orthopedics to 67.9% for psychiatry. The relative decrease among patients with a diagnosis likely requiring specialty care ranged from 0.9% for neurology in patients with multiple sclerosis to 67.1% for psychiatry in patients with severe mental illness. Among residents who continued visiting a specialist, 78.9% saw the same provider as before the transition. CONCLUSIONS: The use of specialty care falls significantly after patients transition to a nursing home. Further research is needed to understand what drives this drop in use and whether interventions, such as telemedicine can ameliorate potential barriers to specialty care.

High deductible health plans and spending among families with a substance use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The United States faces an ongoing drug crisis, worsened by the undertreatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). Family enrollment in high deductible health plans (HDHPs) and the resulting increased cost exposure could exacerbate the undertreatment of SUD. This study characterized the distribution of health care spending within families where a member has a SUD and estimated the association between HDHPs and family health care spending. METHODS: Using commercial claims and enrollment data from OptumLabs (2007-2017), we identified a treatment group of enrollees whose employers began offering an HDHP and comparison group whose employers never offered an HDHP. We used a difference-in-differences analysis that compared health care spending in families at firms that did vs. did not offer an HDHP before and after the HDHP offer. All models were adjusted for employer and year fixed effects, as well as family demographics, size, and chronic conditions. RESULTS: Our sample was comprised of 317,353 family-years. Family members with a SUD, on average, contributed an outsized proportion of total family health care expenditures (56.9% in a family of three). Offering a family HDHP was associated with a 6.1% reduction (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.7-2.6%) in the probability of families having any SUD-related expenditures. The HDHP offer was associated with a $1546 reduction in family total expenditures and a $1185 reduction for the individual with SUD (95% CI: -2272 to -821 and -1845 to -525, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The increased prevalence of family enrollment in HDHPs may further the existing issue of undertreatment of SUDs.

Receipt of Out-of-State Telemedicine Visits Among Medicare Beneficiaries During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, states implemented temporary changes allowing physicians without a license in their state to provide care to their residents. There is an ongoing debate at both the federal and state levels on whether to change licensure rules permanently to facilitate out-of-state telemedicine use. Objective: To describe out-of-state telemedicine use during the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of telemedicine visits included all patients with traditional Medicare from January through June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Telemedicine visits from January through June 2021 where the patient's home address and the physician's practice address were in different states. Results: In describing which patients and specialties were using out-of-state telemedicine, we focused on the period between January to June 2021. We chose this period because it was after the turmoil of the early pandemic, when vaccines became widely available and the health care system had stabilized, but before many of the temporary licensing regulations began to lapse by mid-2021. In the first half of 2021, there were 8 392 092 patients with a telemedicine visit and, of these, 422 547 (5.0%) had 1 or more out-of-state telemedicine visits. Those who lived in a county close to a state border (within 15 miles) accounted for 57.2% of all out-of-state telemedicine visits. Among the out-of-state visits in this time period, 64.3% were with a primary care or mental health clinician. For 62.6% of all out-of-state visits, a prior in-person visit occurred between the same patient and clinician between March 2019 and the visit. The demographics and conditions treated were similar for within-state and out-of-state telemedicine visits, with several notable exceptions. Among those with a telemedicine visit, people in rural communities were more likely to receive out-of-state telemedicine care (33.8% vs 21.0%), and there was high of out-of-state telemedicine use for cancer care (9.8% of all telemedicine visits for cancer care). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that licensure restrictions of out-of-state telemedicine would have had the largest effect on patients who lived near a state border, those in rural locales, and those who received primary care or mental health treatment.

Prescription Drug Spending in Fee-for-Service Medicare, 2008-2019.

Importance: Prescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage. Objective: To estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Descriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage. Exposure: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs). Results: There were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.