In-Person Visits Before Initiation of Telemedicine for Mental Illness.

This cross-sectional study examines how often patients had an in-person visit before initiating telemedicine for mental illness between 2019 and 2022.

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.

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.

Trends in Use of Telemedicine for Stimulant Initiation Among Children and Adults.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to examine trends in stimulant initiation and follow-up care for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) via telemedicine. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal study used national, deidentified commercial health insurance outpatient claims among children (ages 2-17 years; N=535,629) and adults (ages 18-64 years; N=2,116,160) from January 2019 through April 2022. Regression analyses were used to examine risk for stimulant initiation, whether initiation occurred via telemedicine or in-person care, and receipt of a follow-up visit. RESULTS: The mean monthly adjusted number of stimulant initiations per 100,000 enrollees was similar for children before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (prepandemic, 57 initiations; during pandemic, 56 initiations) but increased for adults (prepandemic, 27 initiations; during pandemic, 33 initiations). Initiations via telemedicine peaked at 53%-57% in April 2020 and dropped to about 14% among children and 28% among adults in April 2022. Telemedicine initiations were significantly more common among psychiatrists than among other prescribers (OR=3.70, 95% CI=3.38-4.06 [children]; OR=3.02, 95% CI=2.87-3.17 [adults]) and less common for rural residents (OR=0.57, 95% CI=0.40-0.82 [children]; OR=0.75, 95% CI=0.61-0.92 [adults]). Follow-up care was significantly more common among individuals whose care was initiated via telemedicine than among those receiving in-person care (OR=1.09, 95% CI=1.00-1.19 [children]; OR=1.61, 95% CI=1.53-1.69 [adults]). CONCLUSIONS: Many stimulant treatments were initiated via telemedicine. Proposed rules to prohibit controlled substance prescribing without an in-person evaluation would require significant changes in current practice, potentially limiting access to stimulant medications for ADHD.

Characteristics of Mental Health Specialists Who Shifted Their Practice Entirely to Telemedicine.

This cohort study investigates the number and characteristics of US mental health specialists who had shifted to a fully virtual practice as of 2022.

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.

Choosing Or Losing In Behavioral Health: A Study Of Patients' Experiences Selecting Telehealth Versus In-Person Care.

It is not known how the growth of telehealth has affected patients' choice of visit modalities (telehealth versus in person). In 2023 we conducted a mixed-methods study that paired a nationally representative survey of 2,071 adults (including 571 who used behavioral health services) and semistructured interviews with twenty-six people with depression or bipolar disorder. We explored patients' experiences with visit modality selection and their agency in the decision. Approximately one-third of patients receiving therapy or medication visits reported that their clinicians did not offer both modalities. Thirty-two percent reported that they did not typically receive their preferred modality, and 45 percent did not believe that their clinician considered their modality preferences. Qualitative findings revealed that some clinicians did not elicit patients' modality preferences. Perceived lack of choice affected satisfaction and rapport with clinicians and encouraged some people to seek care elsewhere. These findings highlight trade-offs in policies to preserve patient choice and approaches that clinicians can take to identify and accommodate patients' preferences.

Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment in Sexually and Gender Diverse Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objective: While sexually and gender diverse (SGD) people have higher odds of alcohol use disorder (AUD) compared to heterosexual and cisgender people, AUD treatment access and use disparities are not well characterized. The purpose of this study is to assess differences in AUD treatment among SGD versus non-SGD populations.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from a federally qualified health center electronic health record system in Boston, Massachusetts. Patients were 18 years or older with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 or ICD-10 AUD diagnosis and any clinic visit from January 2013 until June 2021 (N = 3,607). Treatment for AUD was identified using binary variables for medication prescription orders and visits for AUD.Results: Among patients identifying as lesbian/gay, 6.9% had an AUD diagnosis, as compared to 2.6% of patients identifying as straight/heterosexual (P < .001). The prevalence of AUD was higher in the gender diverse group as compared to the cisgender group (5.5% vs 4.4%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in receipt of a prescription for injectable naltrexone, acamprosate, or disulfiram between SGD and non-SGD patients. For oral naltrexone, 16.1% of sexually diverse patients received a prescription, as compared to 9.8% of straight/heterosexual patients (P < .001). For visits, both the straight/heterosexual cohort and the cisgender cohorts had the lowest proportion of AUD-related pharmacotherapy and individual psychotherapy visits, as compared to SGD cohorts.Conclusions: SGD patients had higher proportions of AUD diagnosis and AUD care utilization through behavioral health as compared to non-SGD patients.

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.

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.

Trends in Acute Care Use for Mental Health Conditions Among Youth During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Understanding how children's utilization of acute mental health care changed during the COVID-19 pandemic is critical for directing resources. Objective: To examine youth acute mental health care use (emergency department [ED], boarding, and subsequent inpatient care) during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of national, deidentified commercial health insurance claims of youth mental health ED and hospital care took place between March 2019 and February 2022. Among 4.1 million commercial insurance enrollees aged 5 to 17 years, 17 614 and 16 815 youth had at least 1 mental health ED visit in the baseline year (March 2019-February 2020) and pandemic year 2 (March 2021-February 2022), respectively. Exposure: The COVID-19 pandemic. Main outcomes and measures: The relative change from baseline to pandemic year 2 was determined in (1) fraction of youth with 1 or more mental health ED visits; (2) percentage of mental health ED visits resulting in inpatient psychiatry admission; (3) mean length of inpatient psychiatric stay following ED visit; and (4) frequency of prolonged boarding (≥2 midnights) in the ED or a medical unit before admission to an inpatient psychiatric unit. Results: Of 4.1 million enrollees, 51% were males and 41% were aged 13 to 17 years (vs 5-12 years) with 88 665 mental health ED visits. Comparing baseline to pandemic year 2, there was a 6.7% increase in youth with any mental health ED visits (95% CI, 4.7%-8.8%). Among adolescent females, there was a larger increase (22.1%; 95% CI, 19.2%-24.9%). The fraction of ED visits that resulted in a psychiatric admission increased by 8.4% (95% CI, 5.5%-11.2%). Mean length of inpatient psychiatric stay increased 3.8% (95% CI, 1.8%-5.7%). The fraction of episodes with prolonged boarding increased 76.4% (95% CI, 71.0%-81.0%). Conclusions and relevance: Into the second year of the pandemic, mental health ED visits increased notably among adolescent females, and there was an increase in prolonged boarding of youth awaiting inpatient psychiatric care. Interventions are needed to increase inpatient child psychiatry capacity and reduce strain on the acute mental health care system.

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.

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.

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.

Measurement Approaches to Estimating Methadone Continuity in Opioid Use Disorder Care.

BACKGROUND: Long-term treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), including methadone, is lifesaving. There has been little examination of how to measure methadone continuity in claims data. OBJECTIVES: To develop an approach for measuring methadone continuity in claims data, and compare estimates of methadone versus buprenorphine continuity. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational cohort study using de-identified commercial claims from OptumLabs Data Warehouse (January 1, 2017-June 30, 2021). SUBJECTS: Individuals diagnosed with OUD, ≥1 methadone or buprenorphine claim and ≥180 days continuous enrollment (N=29,633). MEASURES: OUD medication continuity: months with any use, days of continuous use, and proportion of days covered. RESULTS: 5.4% (N=1607) of the study cohort had any methadone use. Ninety-seven percent of methadone claims (N=160,537) were from procedure codes specifically used in opioid treatment programs. Place of service and primary diagnosis codes indicated that several methadone procedure codes were not used in outpatient OUD care. Methadone billing patterns indicated that estimating days-supply based solely on dates of service and/or procedure codes would yield inaccurate continuity results and that an approach incorporating the time between service dates was more appropriate. Among those using methadone, mean [s.d.] months with any use, days of continuous use, and proportion of days covered were 4.8 [1.8] months, 79.7 [73.4] days, and 0.64 [0.36]. For buprenorphine, the corresponding continuity estimates were 4.6 [1.9], 80.7 [70.0], and 0.73 [0.35]. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating methadone continuity in claims data requires a different approach than that for medications largely delivered by prescription fills, highlighting the importance of consistency and transparency in measuring methadone continuity across studies.

Long-Term Prospects for Telemedicine in Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) Treatment: Results from a Longitudinal Survey of OUD Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: During the pandemic, there was a dramatic shift to telemedicine for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. Little is known about how clinician attitudes about telemedicine use for OUD treatment are evolving or their preferences for future use. OBJECTIVE: To understand OUD clinician views of and preferences regarding telemedicine. DESIGN: Longitudinal survey (wave 1, December 2020; wave 2, March 2022). SUBJECTS: National sample of 425 clinicians who treat OUD. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported proportion of OUD visits delivered via telemedicine (actual vs. preferred), comfort in using video visits for OUD, impact of telemedicine on work-related well-being. KEY RESULTS: The mean reported percentage of OUD visits delivered via telemedicine (vs. in person) dropped from 56.9% in December 2020 to 41.5% in March 2022; the mean preferred post-pandemic percentage of OUD visits delivered via telemedicine was 34.8%. Responses about comfort in using video visits for different types of OUD patients remained similar over time despite clinicians having substantially more experience with telemedicine by spring 2022 (e.g., 35.8% vs. 36.0% report being comfortable using video visits for new patients). Almost three-quarters (70.9%) reported that most of their patients preferred to have the majority of their visits via telemedicine, and 76.7% agreed that the option to do video visits helped their patients remain in treatment longer. The majority (58.7%) reported that telemedicine had a positive impact on their work-related well-being, with higher rates of a positive impact among those who completed training more recently (68.5% of those with < 10 years, 62.1% with 10-19 years, and 45.8% with 20 + years, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While many surveyed OUD clinicians were not comfortable using telemedicine for all types of patients, most wanted telemedicine to account for a substantial fraction of OUD visits, and most believed telemedicine has had positive impacts for themselves and their patients.

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.

Telemental health for clinical assessment and treatment.

Telemental health-the use of videoconferencing or audio only (telephone) in mental health care-has accelerated tremendously since the start of the covid-19 pandemic. Meta-analyses have examined the reliability (ie, concordance) of assessment and the efficacy/effectiveness of telemental health compared with in-person care. Results indicate that telemental health assessment and clinical outcomes are similar compared with in-person care but there is much unexplained variability, as well as evidence that patient clinical and demographic characteristics can influence these findings. Further, gaps exist in the literature regarding specific patient populations (eg, psychotic disorders, children/adolescents), treatment modalities (eg, group therapy), audio only telemedicine, and hybrid care that mixes in-person with telemental health care. These gaps provide important directions for the next generation of telemental health research. Comprehensive clinical guidelines from mental health organizations are available to telemental health practitioners and focus on five content themes: legal and regulatory issues, clinical considerations, standard operating procedures and protocols, technical requirements, and considerations of specific populations and settings.

Integration of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder treatment in primary care settings: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) represents the most prevalent addiction in the United States. Integration of AUD treatment in primary care settings would expand care access. The objective of this scoping review is to examine models of AUD treatment in primary care that include pharmacotherapy (acamprosate, disulfiram, naltrexone). METHODS: The team undertook a search across MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on May 21, 2021. Eligibility criteria included: patient population ≥ 18 years old, primary care-based setting, US-based study, presence of an intervention to promote AUD treatment, and prescription of FDA-approved AUD pharmacotherapy. Study design was limited to controlled trials and observational studies. We assessed study bias using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Rating Framework quality rating scheme. RESULTS: The qualitative synthesis included forty-seven papers, representing 25 primary studies. Primary study sample sizes ranged from 24 to 830,825 participants and many (44 %) were randomized controlled trials. Most studies (80 %) included a nonpharmacologic intervention for AUD: 56 % with brief intervention, 40 % with motivational interviewing, and 12 % with motivational enhancement therapy. A plurality of studies (48 %) included mixed pharmacologic interventions, with administration of any combination of naltrexone, acamprosate, and/or disulfiram. Of the 47 total studies included, 68 % assessed care initiation and engagement. Fewer studies (15 %) explored practices surrounding screening for or diagnosing AUD. Outcome measures included receipt of pharmacotherapy and alcohol consumption, which about half of studies included (53 % and 51 %, respectively). Many of these outcomes showed significant findings in favor of integrated care models for AUD. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings may be associated with improved process and outcome measures of care. Future research should seek to understand the varied experiences across care integration models.