Availability of Mental Telehealth Services in the US.

Importance: Telehealth utilization for mental health care remains much higher than it was before the COVID-19 pandemic; however, availability may vary across facilities, geographic areas, and by patients' demographic characteristics and mental health conditions. Objective: To quantify availability, wait times, and service features of telehealth for major depressive disorder, general anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia throughout the US, as well as facility-, client-, and county-level characteristics associated with telehealth availability. Design, Settings, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis of a secret shopper survey of mental health treatment facilities (MHTFs) throughout all US states except Hawaii from December 2022 and March 2023. A nationally representative sample of 1938 facilities were contacted; 1404 (72%) responded and were included. Data analysis was performed from March to July 2023. Exposure: Health facility, client, and county characteristics. Main Outcome and Measures: Clinic-reported availability of telehealth services, availability of telehealth services (behavioral treatment, medication management, and diagnostic services), and number of days until first telehealth appointment. Multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses were conducted to assess whether facility-, client-, and county-level characteristics were associated with each outcome. Results: Of the 1221 facilities (87%) accepting new patients, 980 (80%) reported offering telehealth. Of these, 97% (937 facilities) reported availability of counseling services; 77% (726 facilities), medication management; and 69% (626 facilities) diagnostic services. Telehealth availability did not differ by clinical condition. Private for-profit (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.05-2.92) and private not-for-profit (aOR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.42-3.39) facilities were more likely to offer telehealth than public facilities. Facilities located in metropolitan counties (compared with nonmetropolitan counties) were more likely to offer medication management services (aOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00) but were less likely to offer diagnostic services (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.95). Median (range) wait time for first telehealth appointment was 14 (4-75) days. No differences were observed in availability of an appointment based on the perceived race, ethnicity, or sex of the prospective patient. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study indicate that there were no differences in the availability of mental telehealth services based on the prospective patient's clinical condition, perceived race or ethnicity, or sex; however, differences were found at the facility-, county-, and state-level. These findings suggest widespread disparities in who has access to which telehealth services throughout the US.

Differences in telehealth during COVID-19 between commercial and Medicaid enrollees.

OBJECTIVES: To compare how in-person evaluation and management (E&M) visits and telehealth use differed during the COVID-19 pandemic between commercially insured and Medicaid enrollees, and to assess how insurance plan type-fee-for-service (FFS) vs managed care (MC)-and enrollee characteristics contributed to these differences. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of 2019 and 2020 data from the commercially insured California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California Medicaid program (Medi-Cal). METHODS: We conducted unadjusted comparisons of per capita E&M visits and the share of visits conducted via telehealth by payer (CalPERS vs Medi-Cal) and plan type (FFS vs MC). We estimated linear regressions of telehealth use that adjusted for patient demographics, rurality, and internet access. Among Medi-Cal enrollees, we examined telehealth use differences based on race, language, and citizenship status. RESULTS: Regression-adjusted share of telehealth visits as a proportion of all E&M visits was 22.6% for CalPERS FFS patients (the reference group), 38.2% for Medi-Cal FFS patients, 46.0% for Medi-Cal MC patients, and 53.5% for CalPERS MC patients. Among Medi-Cal enrollees, telehealth use as a share of all E&M visits was higher among Spanish speakers, female enrollees, and rural enrollees. Across most demographic characteristics, Medi-Cal patients enrolled in FFS were less likely to receive telehealth compared with those enrolled in MC. CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, California MC enrollees had higher rates of telehealth use compared with FFS enrollees, regardless of insurer. Among FFS enrollees, those enrolled in Medicaid had higher rates of telehealth use compared with those insured by CalPERS. Telehealth policies should be aware of this heterogeneity, as well as its implications for equity of telehealth access.

Imputation of Race and Ethnicity in Health Insurance Marketplace Enrollment Data, 2015-2022 Open Enrollment Periods.

Information on the race and ethnicity of individuals enrolled through the HealthCare.gov Health Insurance Marketplace is critical for assessing past enrollment efforts and determining whether outreach campaigns should be modified or tailored moving forward. However, approximately one-third of insurance applicants do not complete the race and Hispanic ethnicity questions on the Marketplace application. When self-reported race and ethnicity information is missing, other information about an individual can be used to infer race and ethnicity, such as surnames, first names, and addresses, with each characteristic contributing meaningfully to the identification of six mutually exclusive racial and ethnic groups: American Indian (AI)/Alaskan Native (AN); Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI); Black; Hispanic; Multiracial; and White. Surnames are particularly useful for distinguishing people who identify as Hispanic and AANHPI from other racial and ethnic groups. Geocoded address information is particularly useful in distinguishing Black and White individuals who frequently reside in racially segregated neighborhoods. This article presents the results of imputing race and ethnicity for Marketplace enrollees from 2015 through 2022 using the modified Bayesian Improved First Name Surname and Geocoding (BIFSG) method, developed by the RAND Corporation, which uses surnames, first names, and residential addresses to indirectly estimate race and ethnicity.

Prices Paid to Hospitals by Private Health Plans: Findings from Round 4 of an Employer-Led Transparency Initiative.

Because employer-sponsored spending comes from employee wages and benefits, employers have a fiduciary responsibility to administer benefits in the interest of participants. The lack of transparency of prices in the health care market limits the ability of employers to knowledgeably develop or implement benefit design decisions. This study uses medical claims data from a large population of privately insured individuals, including hospitals and other facilities from across the United States, and allows an easy comparison of hospital prices using a single metric. An important innovation of this study is that our data use agreements allow reporting on prices paid to hospitals and hospital systems (hospitals under joint ownership) identified by name.

Patterns in Geographic Distribution of Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities in the US and Accepted Forms of Payment From 2010 to 2021.

Importance: The drug overdose crisis is a continuing public health problem and is expected to grow substantially in older adults. Understanding the geographic accessibility to a substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facility that accepts Medicare can inform efforts to address this crisis in older adults. Objective: To assess whether geographic accessibility of services was limited for older adults despite the increasing need for SUD and opioid use disorder treatments in this population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cross-sectional study obtained data on all licensed SUD treatment facilities for all US counties and Census tracts listed in the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs from 2010 to 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measures included the national proportion of treatment facilities accepting Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or cash as a form of payment; the proportion of counties with a treatment facility accepting each form of payment; and the proportion of the national population with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or cash payment residing within a 15-, 30-, or 60-minute driving time from an SUD treatment facility accepting their form of payment in 2021. Results: A total of 11 709 SUD treatment facilities operated across the US per year between 2010 and 2021 (140 507 facility-year observations). Cash was the most commonly accepted form of payment (increasing slightly from 91.0% in 2010 to 91.6% by 2021), followed by private insurance (increasing from 63.5% to 75.3%), Medicaid (increasing from 54.0% to 71.8%), and Medicare (increasing from 32.1% to 41.9%). The proportion of counties with a treatment facility that accepted Medicare as a form of payment also increased over the same study period from 41.2% to 53.8%, whereas the proportion of counties with a facility that accepted Medicaid as a form of payment increased from 53.5% to 67.1%. The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with a treatment facility that accepted Medicare as a form of payment within a 15-minute driving time increased from 53.3% to 57.0%. The proportion of individuals with a treatment facility within a 15-minute driving time that accepted their respective form of payment was 73.2% for those with Medicaid, 69.8% for those with private insurance, and 71.4% for those with cash payment in 2021. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that Medicare beneficiaries have less geographic accessibility to SUD treatment facilities given that acceptance of Medicare is low compared with other forms of payment. Policy makers need to consider increasing reimbursement rates and using additional incentives to encourage the acceptance of Medicare.

Brief Report: Medicaid Expansion and Growth in the Workforce for Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Over 700,000 children throughout the U.S. have received insurance coverage through welcome mat effects of Medicaid expansion, including children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Utilizing health workforce data from the Health Resources and Services Administration, we examined workforce growth (2008-2017) among three types of health providers for children with ASD as a result of Medicaid expansion: child psychiatrists, board-certified behavioral analysts (BCBAs) and pediatricians. We found that state Medicaid expansion was associated with a 9% increase in BCBAs per 100,000 children one year after enactment, a 5% increase in child psychiatrists, and was not associated with growth in pediatricians. Results indicate the importance of new policies that directly address a shortage of providers for children with ASD.

Where are US outpatient mental health facilities that serve children with autism spectrum disorder? A national snapshot of geographic disparities.

LAY ABSTRACT: There has been a rise in the observed prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children. Existing studies show the share of counties with a treatment facility that offers care for children with autism spectrum disorder. However, no estimates exist of the share of US outpatient mental health treatment facilities that provide services for children with autism spectrum disorder. We identified key facility-level characteristics in offering mental health care for children with autism spectrum disorder. We used a telephone survey to contact almost all outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the contiguous United States. We asked the facilities if they provided mental health care for children with autism spectrum disorder. We took the results of this survey and estimated multivariable regressions to examine county- and facility-level predictors of offering services. We found that over half (50.3%) of the 6156 outpatient facilities reported offering care for children with autism spectrum disorder. Non-metro counties, counties with a lower percentage of non-White residents, counties with a higher percentage of uninsured residents, and counties with a higher poverty rate had fewer outpatient mental health treatment facilities providing care for children with autism spectrum disorder. Facilities accepting Medicaid as a form of payment, offering telehealth, and private for-profit facilities were more likely to provide services for children with autism spectrum disorder. Because only half of outpatient mental health treatment facilities offer care for children with autism spectrum disorder, public health officials and policymakers should do more to ensure that this vulnerable population has access to mental health services.

Ongoing Disparities in Digital and In-Person Access to Child Psychiatric Services in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number and geographic distribution of children and adolescents in the United States who reside in counties with neither child and adolescent psychiatrists nor sufficient Internet broadband to support telepsychiatry services. METHOD: This analysis combined data from the Health Resources and Services Administration's Area Health Resource Files on child psychiatrist workforce with Federal Communications Commission information on broadband coverage to generate a composite of in-person and digital access to child psychiatric services throughout the United States. Using multivariable fixed-effects Poisson regression analysis, we estimated the number of children and adolescents (aged 5-19 years) without access to psychiatric services and examined disparities across counties in the United States. RESULTS: We estimate that 6,035,402 children and adolescents in the United States (approximately 10%) have inadequate in-person and digital availability of child psychiatric services within their counties. Although this was true for only 3% of children and adolescents in urban counties, this applied to more than half (51%) in rural counties (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.71; 95% CI = 1.94, 3.78; p < .001). Likewise, only 3% of children and adolescents in high-income counties had insufficient digital and physical access, compared to more than 4 in 10 children and adolescents (41%) in low-income counties (AOR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.30-0.61; p < .001). Counties with a higher density of Black and Hispanic residents had greater likelihood of service availability (p < 0.001), potentially a function of living in metropolitan communities. CONCLUSION: Although telehealth holds promise for promoting access to child and adolescent psychiatric services, large disparities in overall access to services persists in rural and low-income communities.

Availability of Outpatient Telemental Health Services in the United States at the Outset of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused dramatic changes in everyday life, a major concern is whether patients have adequate access to mental health care despite shelter-in-place ordinances, school closures, and social distancing practices. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to examine the availability of telehealth services at outpatient mental health treatment facilities in the United States at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify facility-level characteristics and state-level policies associated with the availability. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: All outpatient mental health treatment facilities (N=8860) listed in the Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration on April 16, 2020. MEASURES: Primary outcome is whether an outpatient mental health treatment facility reported offering telehealth services. RESULTS: Approximately 43% of outpatient mental health facilities in the United States reported telehealth availability at the outset of the pandemic. Facilities located in the United States South and nonmetropolitan counties were more likely to offer services, as were facilities with public sector ownership, those providing care for both children and adults, and those accepting Medicaid as a form of payment. Outpatient mental health treatment facilities located in states with state-wide shelter-in-place laws were less likely to offer telehealth, as well as facilities in counties with more COVID-19 cases per 10,000 population. CONCLUSIONS: At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer than half of outpatient mental health treatment facilities were providing telehealth services. Our results suggest that additional policies to promote telehealth may be warranted to increase availability over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Generosity of state insurance mandates and growth in the workforce for autism spectrum disorder.

LAY ABSTRACT: To improve access to health services for children with autism spectrum disorder, US states have passed laws requiring health insurers to cover autism-related care, commonly known as state insurance mandates. However, the features of mandates differ across states, with some state laws containing very generous provisions and others containing very restrictive provisions such as whether the mandates include children aged above 12 years, whether there is a limit on spending, and whether there are restrictions on the types of services covered. This study examined the relationship between generosity of mandates and growth in the health workforce between 2003 and 2017, a period during which 44 states passed mandates. We found that states that enacted more generous mandates experienced significantly more growth in board-certified behavioral analysts who provide behavioral therapy as well as more growth in child psychiatrists. We did not find differences in the growth of pediatricians, which is a less specialized segment of the workforce. Our findings were consistent across eight different mandate features and suggest that the content of legislation may be as important as whether or not legislation has been passed in terms of encouraging growth in the supply of services for children with autism spectrum disorder.

State Insurance Mandates and the Workforce for Children With Autism.

BACKGROUND: State mandates have required insurance companies to provide coverage for autism-related child health care services; however, it has not been determined if insurance mandates have improved the supply of child health care providers. We investigate the effect of state insurance mandates on the supply of child psychiatrists, pediatricians, and board-certified behavioral analysts (BCBAs). METHODS: We used data from the National Conference of State Legislatures and Health Resources and Services Administration's Area Health Resource Files to examine child psychiatrists, pediatricians, and BCBAs in all 50 states from 2003 to 2017. Fixed-effects regression models compared change in workforce density before versus one year after mandate implementation and the effect of mandate generosity across 44 US states implementing mandates between 2003 and 2017. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2017, child psychiatrists increased from 7.40 to 10.03 per 100 000 children, pediatricians from 62.35 to 68.86, and BCBAs from 1.34 to 29.88. Mandate introduction was associated with an additional increase of 0.77 BCBAs per 100 000 children (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18 to 1.42) one year after mandate enactment. Mandate introduction was also associated with a more modest increase among child psychiatrists (95% CI: 0.10 to 0.91) and was not associated with the prevalence of pediatricians (95% CI: -0.76 to 1.13). We also found evidence that more generous mandate benefits were associated with larger effects on workforce supply. CONCLUSIONS: State insurance mandates were associated with an ∼16% increase in BCBAs from 2003 to 2017, but the association with child psychiatrists was smaller and nonsignificant among pediatricians. In these findings, it is suggested that policies are needed that specifically address workforce constraints in the provision of services for children with autism spectrum disorder.

Impact of a Medicaid policy on preventive oral health services for children with intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities, or both.

BACKGROUND: Integrating preventive oral health services (POHS) into medical offices may ease access to care for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). The authors examined the impact of state policies allowing delivery of POHS in medical offices on receipt of POHS among Medicaid enrollees with IDD. METHODS: The authors used 2006 through 2014 Medicaid data for children with IDD aged 6 months through 5 years from 38 states. IDD were defined using 14 condition codes from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse. The length of the state's medical POHS policy (no policy, < 1 year, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, or ≥ 4 years) was interacted with an indicator that the child was younger than 3 years. The authors used logistic regression models to estimate the likelihood that a child received POHS in a medical office or in a medical or dental office in a given year. RESULTS: Among 447,918 children with IDD, 1.6% received POHS in medical offices. Children younger than 3 years in states with longer-enacted policies had higher rates of receiving POHS. For example, the predicted probability of receiving POHS was 40.6% (95% confidence interval, 36.3% to 44.9%) for children younger than 3 years in states with a medical POHS policy for more than 4 years compared with 30.6% (95% confidence interval, 27.8% to 33.5%) for children in states without a policy. CONCLUSIONS: State Medicaid policies allowing delivery of POHS in medical offices increased receipt of POHS among Medicaid-enrolled children with IDD who were younger than 3 years. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Few children with IDD receive POHS in any setting. Efforts are needed to reduce barriers to POHS for publicly insured children with IDD.

Implementation of Medical Homes in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: From 2011 through 2014, the Federally Qualified Health Center Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration provided care management fees and technical assistance to a nationwide sample of 503 federally qualified health centers to help them achieve the highest (level 3) medical-home recognition by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a designation that requires the implementation of processes to improve access, continuity, and coordination. METHODS: We examined the achievement of medical-home recognition and used Medicare claims and beneficiary surveys to measure utilization of services, quality of care, patients' experiences, and Medicare expenditures in demonstration sites versus comparison sites. Using difference-in-differences analyses, we compared changes in outcomes in the two groups of sites during a 3-year period. RESULTS: Level 3 medical-home recognition was awarded to 70% of demonstration sites and to 11% of comparison sites. Although the number of visits to federally qualified health centers decreased in the two groups, smaller reductions among demonstration sites than among comparison sites led to a relative increase of 83 visits per 1000 beneficiaries per year at demonstration sites (P<0.001). Similar trends explained the higher performance of demonstration sites with respect to annual eye examinations and nephropathy tests (P<0.001 for both comparisons); there were no significant differences with respect to three other process measures. Demonstration sites had larger increases than comparison sites in emergency department visits (30.3 more per 1000 beneficiaries per year, P<0.001), inpatient admissions (5.7 more per 1000 beneficiaries per year, P=0.02), and Medicare Part B expenditures ($37 more per beneficiary per year, P=0.02). Demonstration-site participation was not associated with relative improvements in most measures of patients' experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstration sites had higher rates of medical-home recognition and smaller decreases in the number of patients' visits to federally qualified health centers than did comparison sites, findings that may reflect better access to primary care relative to comparison sites. Demonstration sites had larger increases in emergency department visits, inpatient admissions, and Medicare Part B expenditures. (Funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.).

Specialty Payment Model Opportunities and Assessment: Gastroenterology and Cardiology Model Design Report.

Gastroenterology and cardiology services are common and costly among Medicare beneficiaries. Episode-based payment, which aims to create incentives for high-quality, low-cost care, has been identified as a promising alternative payment model. This article describes research related to the design of episode-based payment models for ambulatory gastroenterology and cardiology services for possible testing by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The authors analyzed Medicare claims data to describe the frequency and characteristics of gastroenterology and cardiology index procedures, the practices that delivered index procedures, and the patients that received index procedures. The results of these analyses can help inform CMS decisions about the definition of episodes in an episode-based payment model; payment adjustments for service setting, multiple procedures, or other factors; and eligibility for the payment model.

Specialty Payment Model Opportunities and Assessment: Oncology Model Design Report.

This article describes research related to the design of a payment model for specialty oncology services for possible testing by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Cancer is a common and costly condition. Episode-based payment, which aims to create incentives for high-quality, low-cost care, has been identified as a promising alternative payment model for oncology care. Episode-based payment systems can provide flexibility to health care providers to select among the most effective and efficient treatment alternatives, including activities that are not currently reimbursed under Medicare payment policies. However, the model design also needs to ensure that high-quality care is delivered and that beneficial treatments are not withheld from patients. CMS asked MITRE and RAND to conduct analyses to inform design decisions related to an episode-based oncology model for Medicare beneficiaries undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer. In particular, this study focuses on analyses of Medicare claims data related to the definition of the initiation of an episode of chemotherapy, patterns of spending during and surrounding episodes of chemotherapy, and attribution of episodes of chemotherapy to physician practices. We found that the time between the primary cancer diagnosis and chemotherapy initiation varied widely across patients, ranging from one day to over seven years, with a median of 2.4 months. The average level of total monthly payments varied considerably across cancers, with the highest spending peak of $9,972 for lymphoma, and peaks of $3,109 for breast cancer and $2,135 for prostate cancer.

Specialty Payment Model Opportunities and Assessment: Oncology Simulation Report.

This article describes the results of a simulation analysis of a payment model for specialty oncology services that is being developed for possible testing by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS asked MITRE and RAND to conduct simulation analyses to preview some of the possible impacts of the payment model and to inform design decisions related to the model. The simulation analysis used an episode-level dataset based on Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims for historical oncology episodes provided to Medicare FFS beneficiaries in 2010. Under the proposed model, participating practices would continue to receive FFS payments, would also receive per-beneficiary per-month care management payments for episodes lasting up to six months, and would be eligible for performance-based payments based on per-episode spending for attributed episodes relative to a per-episode spending target. The simulation offers several insights into the proposed payment model for oncology: (1) The care management payments used in the simulation analysis-$960 total per six-month episode-represent only 4 percent of projected average total spending per episode (around $27,000 in 2016), but they are large relative to the FFS revenues of participating oncology practices, which are projected to be around $2,000 per oncology episode. By themselves, the care management payments would increase physician practices' Medicare revenues by roughly 50 percent on average. This represents a substantial new outlay for the Medicare program and a substantial new source of revenues for oncology practices. (2) For the Medicare program to break even, participating oncology practices would have to reduce utilization and intensity by roughly 4 percent. (3) The break-even point can be reduced if the care management payments are reduced or if the performance-based payments are reduced.