6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of Telemedicine and Quality of Care Among Medicare Enrollees With Serious Mental Illness

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cohort study examines the use of telemental health services by Medicare beneficiaries with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder, and whether outcomes differ according to a practice’s extent of telemedicine use.

          Key Points

          Question

          Was telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic associated with more visits and higher quality of care for patients with serious mental illness?

          Findings

          In this cohort study of 120 050 Medicare beneficiaries with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder, patients receiving mental health care at practices that almost exclusively switched to telemental health service had 13.0% more mental health visits than those receiving care at practices that largely used in-person visits. There were no changes in medication adherence, hospital and emergency department use, or mortality based on the extent of telemental health use.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that greater telemental health use was associated with more mental health visits, but not other changes in measures of quality of care.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The effectiveness of telemental health: a 2013 review.

          The effectiveness of any new technology is typically measured in order to determine whether it successfully achieves equal or superior objectives over what is currently offered. Research in telemental health-in this article mainly referring to telepsychiatry and psychological services-has advanced rapidly since 2003, and a new effectiveness review is needed. The authors reviewed the published literature to synthesize information on what is and what is not effective related to telemental health. Terms for the search included, but were not limited to, telepsychiatry, effectiveness, mental health, e-health, videoconferencing, telemedicine, cost, access, and international. Telemental health is effective for diagnosis and assessment across many populations (adult, child, geriatric, and ethnic) and for disorders in many settings (emergency, home health) and appears to be comparable to in-person care. In addition, this review has identified new models of care (i.e., collaborative care, asynchronous, mobile) with equally positive outcomes. Telemental health is effective and increases access to care. Future directions suggest the need for more research on service models, specific disorders, the issues relevant to culture and language, and cost.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The COVID-19 Global Pandemic: Implications for People With Schizophrenia and Related Disorders

            Abstract The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) global pandemic has already had an unprecedented impact on populations around the world, and is anticipated to have a disproportionate burden on people with schizophrenia and related disorders. We discuss the implications of the COVID-19 global pandemic with respect to: (1) increased risk of infection and poor outcomes among people with schizophrenia, (2) anticipated adverse mental health consequences for people with schizophrenia, (3) considerations for mental health service delivery in inpatient and outpatient settings, and (4) potential impact on clinical research in schizophrenia. Recommendations emphasize rapid implementation of measures to both decrease the risk of COVID-19 transmission and maintain continuity of clinical care and research to preserve safety of both people with schizophrenia and the public.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Usefulness of telepsychiatry: A critical evaluation of videoconferencing-based approaches.

              Telepsychiatry, i.e., the use of information and communication technologies to provide psychiatric services from a distance, has been around for more than half a century now. Research over this period has shown that videoconferencing-based telepsychiatry is an enabling and empowering form of service delivery, which promotes equality of access, and high levels of satisfaction among patients. The range of services offered by videoconferencing-based telepsychiatry, potential users and points of delivery of such services are theoretically limitless. Telepsychiatry has both clinical utility and non-clinical uses such as administrative, learning and research applications. A large body of accumulated evidence indicates that videoconferencing-based telepsychiatric assessments are reliable, and clinical outcomes of telepsychiatric interventions are comparable to conventional treatment among diverse patient populations, ages and diagnostic groups, and on a wide range of measures. However, on many aspects of effectiveness, the evidence base is still relatively limited and often compromised by methodological problems. The lack of cost-effectiveness data in particular, is a major hindrance, raising doubts about the continued viability of telepsychiatric services. Added to this are the vagaries of technology, negative views among clinicians, poor uptake by providers, and several legal, ethical and administrative barriers. These hamper the widespread implementation of telepsychiatry and its integration with routine care. Though further advances in technology and research are expected to solve many of these problems, the way forward would be to promote telepsychiatry as an adjunct to conventional care, and to develop hybrid models, which incorporate both traditional and telepsychiatric forms of mental health-care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Health Forum
                JAMA Health Forum
                JAMA Health Forum
                American Medical Association
                2689-0186
                27 October 2023
                October 2023
                27 October 2023
                : 4
                : 10
                : e233648
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [2 ]McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [4 ]RAND Health, Arlington, Virginia
                [5 ]Department of Mental Health, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
                [6 ]Department of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                [7 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [8 ]Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                [9 ]Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: August 24, 2023.
                Published: October 27, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.3648
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Wilcock AD et al. JAMA Health Forum.
                Corresponding Author: Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, 180 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115 ( mehrotra@ 123456hcp.med.harvard.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Wilcock had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Wilcock, Uscher-Pines, Mehrotra.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Wilcock, Mehrotra.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Raja.
                Statistical analysis: Wilcock, Normand, Zubizarreta.
                Obtained funding: Huskamp, Mehrotra.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Huskamp, Busch, Mehrotra.
                Supervision: Uscher-Pines.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study. Additionally, Dr Raja reported receiving fees from RAND Corporation and the NIMH during the conduct of the study. Dr Mehrotra reported receiving personal fees from Sanofi and the National Opinion Research Center outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This work was supported by grant R01MH112829-02 from the NIMH.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                aoi230072
                10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.3648
                10611994
                37889483
                7c5c54f5-0f4d-473f-9970-a583c4abae78
                Copyright 2023 Wilcock AD et al. JAMA Health Forum.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 1 April 2023
                : 24 August 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article