Perceptions of Pediatric Endocrinologists and Neurologists on the Drivers of Telehealth Use.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent and drivers of telehealth use variation across clinicians within the same pediatric subspecialties. METHODS: In this mixed methods study, 8 pediatric medical groups in California shared data for eleven subspecialties. We calculated the proportion of total visits delivered via telehealth by medical group for each subspecialty and identified the 8 most common International Classification of Diseases 10 diagnoses for telehealth and in-person visits in endocrinology and neurology. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 pediatric endocrinologists and neurologists and applied a positive deviance approach comparing high versus low utilizers to identify factors that influenced their level of telehealth use. RESULTS: In 2019, medical groups that submitted quantitative data conducted 1.8 million visits with 549,306 unique pediatric patients. For 3 subspecialties, there was relatively little variation in telehealth use across medical groups: urology (mean: 16.5%, range: 9%-23%), orthopedics (mean: 7.2%, range: 2%-14%), and cardiology (mean: 11.2%, range: 2%-24%). The remaining subspecialties, including neurology (mean: 58.6%, range: 8%-93%) and endocrinology (mean: 49.5%, range: 24%-92%), exhibited higher levels of variation. For both neurology and endocrinology, the top diagnoses treated in-person were similar to those treated via telehealth. There was limited consensus on which clinical conditions were appropriate for telehealth. High telehealth utilizers were more comfortable conducting telehealth visits for new patients and often worked in practices with innovations to support telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians perceive that telehealth may be appropriate for a range of clinical conditions when the right supports are available.

Use of Telehealth Across Pediatric Subspecialties Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The identification of variation in health care is important for quality improvement. Little is known about how different pediatric subspecialties are using telehealth and what is driving variation. Objective: To characterize trends in telehealth use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across pediatric subspecialties and the association of delivery change with no-show rates and access disparities. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, 8 large pediatric medical groups in California collaborated to share aggregate data on telehealth use for 11 pediatric subspecialties from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly in-person and telehealth visits for 11 subspecialties, characteristics of patients participating in in-person and telehealth visits, and no-show rates. Monthly use rates per 1000 unique patients were calculated. To assess changes in no-show rates, a series of linear regression models that included fixed effects for medical groups and calendar month were used. The demographic characteristics of patients served in person during the prepandemic period were compared with those of patients who received in-person and telehealth care during the pandemic period. Results: In 2019, participating medical groups conducted 1.8 million visits with 549 306 unique patients younger than 18 years (228 120 [41.5%] White and 277 167 [50.5%] not Hispanic). A total of 72 928 patients (13.3%) preferred a language other than English, and 250 329 (45.6%) had Medicaid. In specialties with lower telehealth use (cardiology, orthopedics, urology, nephrology, and dermatology), telehealth visits ranged from 6% to 29% of total visits from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. In specialties with higher telehealth use (genetics, behavioral health, pulmonology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and neurology), telehealth constituted 38.8% to 73.0% of total visits. From the prepandemic to the pandemic periods, no-show rates slightly increased for lower-telehealth-use subspecialties (9.2% to 9.4%) and higher-telehealth-use subspecialties (13.0% to 15.3%), but adjusted differences (comparing lower-use and higher-use subspecialties) in changes were not statistically significant (difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.2 to 6.3 percentage points; P = .15). Patients who preferred a language other than English constituted 6140 in-person visits (22.2%) vs 2707 telehealth visits (11.4%) in neurology (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: There was high variability in adoption of telehealth across subspecialties and in patterns of use over time. The documentation of variation in telehealth adoption can inform evolving telehealth policy for pediatric patients, including the appropriateness of telehealth for different patient needs and areas where additional tools are needed to promote appropriate use.

Mobilizing the U.S. Military's TRICARE Program for Value-Based Care: A Report From the Defense Health Board.

The U.S. Military Health System spends about $50 billion annually to provide care to 9.6 million active duty service members, retirees, and their families through its TRICARE health plans. TRICARE follows the predominant payment model in the USA-fee-for-service-although the Department of Defense (DoD) and Congress encourage and mandate a move toward alternative payment models-mainly, fee-for-value. For the next TRICARE contracts which will begin in 2023, the DoD asked its health-focused federal advisory committee, the Defense Health Board (DHB), to recommend how best to assess and prioritize leading value-based healthcare initiatives identified from private, public, and employer-based health plans. The November 2020 report, 'Modernization of the TRICARE Benefit', specifies a rubric to evaluate these value-based care initiatives not only in traditional measures of effectiveness but also in terms of the Defense Health Agency's Quadruple Aim with its focus on readiness. The goal of TRICARE's move toward value-based care is to leverage its size and focus on prevention of disease and injury to maintain the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces in addition to delivering great outcomes and value to the DoD's nearly 10 million beneficiaries. The DHB emphasizes that TRICARE's size and focus on providing quality care at lower cost will incentivize providers to participate in the shift toward value-based care despite the potential challenges in transitioning to this system. This shift also aims to motivate other large government and private payors to accelerate the adoption of value-based care through TRICARE's example.

Impact of a Family Medicine Minor Procedure Service on Cost of Care for a Health Plan.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Academic medical centers (AMC) are among some of the most expensive places to provide care. One way to cut costs is by decreasing unnecessary referrals to specialists for procedures that can be provided by well-trained primary care physicians. Our goal is to measure the financial impact of an office-based minor procedure service driven entirely by family physicians. METHODS: We examined claims data for procedures performed on patients insured under our AMC's home-grown accountable care organization-style health plan (Stanford Health Care Alliance [SHCA]). Descriptive statistics was used to compare the volume and cost of procedures performed by family medicine (FM) versus specialty care (SC). We preformed a subanalysis of SC procedures to explore the degree to which consultation and facility fees increased costs for SC. We used mathematical modeling to estimate the impact on cost of care if procedures were shifted from SC to FM and to calculate a return on investment (ROI). RESULTS: Our data set examined 6,974 outpatient procedures performed on SHCA patients from 2016-2018 at a cost of $5,263,720 to SHCA. FM performed 6% of procedures at an average cost of $236 per procedure, while SC performed 94% of procedures at an average cost of $787 per procedure. FM saved money for all 12 types of skin, musculoskeletal, and reproductive procedures assessed; the average saved per procedure was $551. This represents a 70% cost savings. ROI was 2.33; for every $1 spent on FM procedures, SHCA saved $2.33. CONCLUSION: A family medicine minor procedure service significantly lowered health spending at our AMC.