Identifying High-Cost, High-Need Patients in a Network of Community Hospitals.

We examined healthcare costs at HonorHealth, a community-based academic health center comprised of 5 hospitals and numerous ambulatory care facilities. Patient encounters that resulted in admission in 2019 were included in the study. Mean costs in 2019 for high costs and high needs (HCHN) patients were compared with all remaining patients using a framework developed by the National Academy of Medicine. HCHN patients were older (71 vs 52 years), with a lower percentage of females (41.7% vs 59.8%), more frequently White (90.1% vs 87.5%), less frequently married (52.4% vs 54.5%), with a longer length of stay (6.5 vs 3.0 days) and higher mean charges ($134 743 vs $16 414). The mean cost per patient in the HCHN group decreased by age group ($192, 963, $165 200, $144 584, $134 795, and $108 356) for 0 to 18, 19 to 44, 45 to 64, 65 to 84, and 85+ years, respectively. HCHN patients were more publicly insured (49% vs 38%). Targeted interventions to treat HCHN may lead to lower healthcare costs and improved health outcomes within this system.

Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Differences in Primary Care No-Show Risk with Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in rapid implementation of telemedicine. Little is known about the impact of telemedicine on both no-show rates and healthcare disparities on the general primary care population during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To compare no-show rates between telemedicine and office visits in the primary care setting, while controlling for the burden of COVID-19 cases, with focus on underserved populations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Multi-center urban network of primary care clinics between April 2021 and December 2021. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 311,517 completed primary care physician visits across 164,647 patients. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was risk ratio of no-show incidences (i.e., no-show rates) between telemedicine and office visits across demographic sub-groups including age, ethnicity, race, and payor type. RESULTS: Compared to in-office visits, the overall risk of no-showing favored telemedicine, adjusted risk ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.71), absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.0%. This favorability was most profound in several cohorts with racial/ethnic and socioeconomic differences with risk ratios in Black/African American 0.47 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.53), ARR 9.0%; Hispanic/Latino 0.63 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.68), ARR 4.6%; Medicaid 0.58 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.62) ARR 7.3%; Self-Pay 0.64 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.70) ARR 11.3%. LIMITATION: The analysis was limited to physician-only visits in a single setting and did not examine the reasons for visits. CONCLUSION: As compared to office visits, patients using telemedicine have a lower risk of no-showing to primary care appointments. This is one step towards improved access to care.

Exploring the role of telehealth in providing equitable healthcare to the vulnerable patient population during COVID-19.

The COVID 19 pandemic resulted in widespread telehealth implementation. Existent health disparities were widened, with under-represented minorities (URM) disproportionately affected by COVID. In this study, we assess the role of telehealth in improving access to care in the URMs and vulnerable populations. We noted a statistically significant increase in the number of visits in Hispanic or Latino patients (15.2% increase, p < 0.01) and Black patients (19% increase, p < 0.01). Based on payer type, there was a statistically significant increase in the number of visits in the Medicare (10.2%, p = 0.0001) and Medicaid (16.2%, p < 0.01) groups. We also noted increased access to care with telehealth in patients who were 65 and older (10.6%, p = 0.004). This highlights the importance of telehealth in increasing access to care and promoting health equity in the URM and vulnerable patient populations.