Federal telehealth policy changes during the COVID-19 public health emergency: Associations with telemental health use among rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) led to increased mental health (MH) concerns among Medicare beneficiaries while inhibiting their access to MH services (MHS). To help address these problems, the federal government introduced temporary flexibilities permitting broader telehealth use in Medicare. This study compared rural versus urban patterns of change in telemental health (TMH) use among adult MHS users in fee-for-service Medicare from 2019 to 2020, when PHE-related telehealth expansions were enacted. METHODS: In this cross-sectional investigation based on 2019-2020 Medicare claims data, we used chi-square tests, t-tests and adjusted logistic regression to explore how year (pre-PHE vs. PHE), rurality, and beneficiary characteristics were related to TMH use. FINDINGS: From 2019 to 2020, the proportion of MHS users who used TMH rose from 4.8% to 51.9% among rural residents (p < 0.0001) and from 1.1% to 61.3% (p < 0.0001) among urban residents. Across study years, adjusted odds of TMH use grew more than 18-fold for rural MHS users (OR = 18.10, p < 0.001) and nearly 120-fold for their urban counterparts (OR = 119.75, p < 0.001). Among rural MHS users in 2020, adjusted odds of TMH use diminished with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: TMH mitigated PHE-related barriers to MHS access for rural and urban beneficiaries, but urban residents benefited disproportionately. Among rural beneficiaries, older age was related to lower TMH use. To avoid reinforcing existing MHS access disparities, policies must address factors limiting TMH use among rural beneficiaries, especially those over 75 and those from historically underserved communities.

Rural-Urban Differences in Workers' Access to Paid Sick Leave.

Paid sick leave (PSL) is associated with health care access and health outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of PSL as a public health strategy, yet PSL is not guaranteed in the United States. Rural workers may have more limited PSL, but research on rural PSL has been limited. We estimated unadjusted and adjusted PSL prevalence among rural versus urban workers and identified characteristics of rural workers with lower PSL access using the 2014-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We found rural workers had lower access to PSL than urban workers, even after adjusting for worker and employment characteristics. Paid sick leave access was lowest among rural workers who were Hispanic, lacked employer-sponsored insurance, and reported poorer health status. Lower rural access to PSL poses a threat to the health and health care access of rural workers and has implications for the COVID-19 public health emergency and beyond.

Telehealth Use in a Rural State: A Mixed-Methods Study Using Maine's All-Payer Claims Database.

PURPOSE: This study assesses trends in telehealth use in Maine-a rural state with comprehensive telehealth policies-across payers, services, and rurality, and identifies barriers and facilitators to the adoption and use of telehealth services. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach, researchers analyzed data from Maine's All Payer Claims Database (2008-2016) and key informant interviews with health care organization leaders to examine telehealth use and explore factors impacting telehealth adoption and implementation. FINDINGS: Despite a 14-fold increase in the use of telehealth over the 9-year study period, use remains low-0.28% of individuals used telehealth services in 2016 compared with 0.02% in 2008. Services provided via telehealth varied by rurality; speech language pathology (SLP) was the most common type of service among rural residents, while psychiatric services were most common among urban residents. Medicaid was the primary payer for over 70% of telehealth claims in both rural and urban areas of the state, driving the increase of telehealth claims over time. Issues challenging organizations seeking to deploy telehealth included provider resistance, staff turnover, provider shortages, and lack of broadband. Key informants identified inadequate and inconsistent reimbursement as barriers to comprehensive, systematic billing for telehealth services, resulting in underrepresentation of telehealth services in claims data. CONCLUSIONS: Claims covered by Medicaid account for much of the observed expansion of telehealth use in Maine. Telehealth appears to be improving access to behavioral health and SLP services. Provider shortages, broadband, and Medicare and commercial coverage policies limit the use of telehealth services in rural areas.

Cost-effectiveness of open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the OVER trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the costs and comparative cost-effectiveness of two methods of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the Open Versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Study, a multicenter randomized trial of 881 patients. METHODS: The primary outcomes of this analysis were mean total health care cost per life-year and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from randomization to 2 years after. QALYs were calculated from EuroQol (EQ)-5D questionnaires collected at baseline and annually. Health care utilization data were obtained directly from patients and from national VA and Medicare data sources. VA costs were obtained from national VA sources using methods previously developed by the VA Health Economics Resource Center. Costs for non-VA care were determined from Medicare claims data or billing data from the patient's health care providers. RESULTS: After 2 years of follow-up, mean life-years were 1.78 in the endovascular repair group and 1.74 in the open repair group (difference, 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.03 to 0.09; P = .29). Mean QALYs were 1.462 in the endovascular group and 1.461 in the open group (difference adjusting for baseline EQ-5D score, 0.006; 95% CI, -0.038 to 0.052; P = .78). Mean graft costs were higher in the endovascular group ($14,052 vs $1363; P < .001), but length of stay was shorter (5.0 vs 10.5 days; P < .001), resulting in a lower mean cost of the hospital admission for the AAA procedure in the endovascular repair group of $37,068 vs $42,970 (difference, -$5901; 95% CI, -$12,135 to -$821; P = .04). After 2 years, total health care costs remained lower in the endovascular group, but the difference was no longer significant (-$5019; 95% CI, -$16,720 to $4928; P = .35). The probability of endovascular repair being less costly and more effective was 70.9% for life-years and 51.4% for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter randomized trial, endovascular AAA repair resulted in lower cost and better survival than open repair after the initial hospitalization for repair; but after 2 years, survival, quality of life, and costs were not significantly different between the two treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair was conducted. Although open surgery has been considered the gold standard for prevention of AAA rupture, emerging less-invasive endovascular treatments have led to increased interest in evaluating the cost and cost-effectiveness of treatment options. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published in MEDLINE between 1999 and 2005 reporting the cost and/or cost-effectiveness of endovascular and/or open surgical repair of nonruptured AAAs was conducted. Case series studies with less than fifty patients per treatment were excluded. RESULTS: Of twenty eligible articles, three were randomized controlled trials, twelve case series, four Markov models, and one systematic review. Regardless of time frame, all studies found that endovascular repair costs more than open surgery. Although the high cost of the endovascular prosthesis was partially offset by reduced intensive care, hospital length of stay, operating time, blood transfusions, and perioperative complications, hospital costs were still greater for endovascular than open surgical repair. For patients medically fit for open surgery, mid-term costs were greater for endovascular repair with no difference in overall survival or quality of life. For patients medically unfit for open surgery, endovascular repair costs more than no intervention with no difference in survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of AAA treatment options are time dependent and vary by institutional perspective, from a societal perspective, endovascular repair is not currently cost-effective for patients with large AAA regardless of medical fitness.

Comparison of endovascular and open surgical repairs for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate treatment options for nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA); the relationship of hospital and physician volume to outcomes for endovascular repair (EVAR); affect of patient and AAA factors on outcomes; cost-benefits of treatments. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library, FDA, and other electronic websites until May 2006. Reference lists and content experts were used to identify additional reports. REVIEW METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of open surgical repair (OSR), EVAR, or active surveillance, systematic reviews, nonrandomized U.S. trials, and national registries were used to assess clinical outcomes. Volume-outcome articles published after 2000 were reviewed if they reported the relationship between U.S. hospital or physician volume and outcomes, were population-based, and the analysis was adjusted for risk factors. Cost studies included at least 50 EVAR and provided data on costs or charges, and cost-effectiveness analyses. RESULTS: Initial or attained diameter is the strongest known predictor of rupture. The annual risk of rupture is below 1 percent for AAA <5.5 cm in diameter. Among medically ill patients unfit for OSR with AAA >/=5.5 cm, the risk of rupture may be as high as 10 percent per year. Early/immediate OSR of AAA <5.5 cm (two trials n=2,226) did not reduce all-cause mortality compared with surveillance and delayed OSR. Results did not differ according to age, gender, baseline AAA diameter or creatinine concentration. Two RCT with followup of at least 2 years compared EVAR to OSR for AAA >/=5.5 cm. EVAR reduced postoperative 30-day mortality compared to OSR (1.6 percent EVAR vs. 4.7 percent OSR, RR = 0.34 [0.17 to 0.65]). Early reduction in all-cause mortality with EVAR disappeared before 2 years. Post-operative complications and reinterventions were higher with EVAR. Quality of life differences were small and disappeared after 3-6 months. One RCT of patients with AAA >/=5.5 cm judged medically unfit for OSR (n=338), reported no difference in all-cause mortality or AAA mortality between EVAR and no intervention (HR = 1.21; 95 percent CI 0.87 to 1.69). Forty-eight nonrandomized reports evaluated EVAR. Patient, AAA characteristics, and outcomes were similar to RCT comparing EVAR to OSR. A volume outcome relationship has been shown for OSR, but there are no data adequate to estimate the effect of hospital or physician volume on EVAR outcomes or to identify a volume threshold for policymakers. Immediate OSR for AAA <5.5 cm costs more and does not improve long-term survival compared to active surveillance and delayed OSR. The cost effectiveness of EVAR relative to OSR is difficult to determine. However, compared to OSR for AAA >/=5.5 cm, EVAR has greater in-hospital costs primarily due to the cost of the prosthesis. EVAR has shorter length of stay, lower 30-day morbidity and mortality but does not improve quality of life beyond 3 months or survival beyond 2 years, and is associated with complications, need for reintervention, long-term monitoring, and higher long-term costs. Compared to no intervention in patients medically unfit for OSR, EVAR costs more and does not improve survival or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: For AAA <5.5 cm in diameter, active surveillance with delayed OSR results in equivalent mortality but lesser morbidity and operative costs due to fewer interventions compared to immediate OSR. For AAA >/=5.5 cm, EVAR has not been shown to improve long-term survival or health status over OSR though peri-operative outcomes are improved. EVAR does not improve survival in patients who are medically unfit for OSR. EVAR is associated with more complications, need for reintervention, monitoring, and costs compared to OSR or no intervention. U.S. RCT are needed using approved EVAR devices to evaluate patient outcomes.

Health care coverage and access to care: the status of Minnesota's veterans.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to examine veterans' reliance on health care services provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) within Minnesota and estimate the potential effect on uninsurance rates if all eligible veterans relied on VHA coverage. Secondary objectives were to compare veterans and nonveterans' by geographic location, demographic characteristics, health status, and health insurance coverage and to compare insured and uninsured veterans especially with regard to access to care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Data are from the 2001 Minnesota Health Access Survey of a stratified random sample of more than 27,000 respondents, of whom 3,500 were self-identified veterans. Although all veterans were eligible to obtain health care services from the VHA in 2001, veterans not reporting VHA coverage and having no other source of insurance coverage were considered uninsured. Differences in weighted population characteristics are reported. Logistic regression analysis is used to identify factors associated with veterans' reliance on VHA coverage. RESULTS: Veterans represented 13.4% of the state's adult population and 9.3% of the state's uninsured nonelderly adult population in 2001. Uninsured veterans were more likely to be single, unemployed, living in rural areas, and reporting constrained access to services than insured veterans. Veterans with a non-VHA source of insurance were less reliant on VHA services. CONCLUSIONS: The state's uninsurance rate would significantly decrease if VHA capacity constraints were alleviated and veterans relied on the VHA safety net. If veterans' insurance status matters in states with low uninsurance rates, VHA coverage has broader implications for states with higher veteran concentrations and higher uninsurance rates.

National trends in the provision of smoking cessation aids within the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in providing treatment for tobacco dependence, accomplished by estimating national trends in the number and percent of smokers receiving smoking cessation aids (SCAs) within the VHA, trends in SCA utilization and expenditures, and the impact of lifting restrictions on patient access to SCAs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: All patients receiving an outpatient SCA prescription were identified within the Veterans Affairs (VA) Pharmacy Benefits Management database over a 4-year period- October 1, 1998 (n = 61 968) to September 30, 2002 (n = 76 641). Smoking prevalence was based on data from the VA's 1999 Large Health Survey of Enrollees. A subsample of sites was classified as having restricted access to SCAs if patients were required to attend smoking cessation classes. Changes in annual SCA utilization rates and expenditures by SCA type and restriction status were measured to assess changes in treatment of tobacco dependence. RESULTS: Approximately 7% of smokers received SCA prescriptions, and SCAs accounted for less than 1% of the VHA's annual outpatient pharmacy budget in any given year. Following downward trends in the cost of 30-day SCA prescriptions, annual SCA expenditures per patient decreased over time. Expenditures were lower for restricted than unrestricted sites. More than two thirds of smokers who were prescribed medications received the nicotine patch, a quarter received bupropion sustained-release, and fewer than 10% received nicotine gum. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of SCA utilization and cost are low, stable, and less than the recommended rates in national smoking cessation guidelines, suggesting that this population of smokers is undertreated. Removing SCA restrictions is not prohibitively expensive and improves access to cost-effective care.