Search

Introduction:The COVID-19 pandemic brought about renewed interest and investment in telehealth, while also highlighting persistent health disparities in the Southern states. Little is known about the characteristics of those utilizing telehealth services in Arkansas, a rural Southern state. We sought to compare the characteristics of telehealth utilizers and nonutilizers among Medicare beneficiaries in Arkansas before the COVID-19 public health emergency to provide a baseline for future research investigating disparities in telehealth utilization. Methods:We used Arkansas Medicare beneficiary data (2018–2019) to model telehealth use. We included interactions to assess how the association between the number of chronic conditions and telehealth was moderated by race/ethnicity and rurality, adjusted for covariates. Results:Overall telehealth utilization in 2019 was low (n = 4,463; 1.1%). The adjusted odds of utilizing telehealth was higher for non-Hispanic Black/African Americans (vs. white, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17–1.52), rural beneficiaries (aOR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.79–2.21), and those with more chronic conditions (aOR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.21–1.25). Race/ethnicity and rurality were significant moderators, such that the association between the number of chronic conditions and telehealth was strongest among white and among rural beneficiaries. Discussion:Among the 2019 Arkansas Medicare beneficiaries, having more chronic conditions was most strongly associated with telehealth use among white and rural individuals, while the effect was not as pronounced for Black/African American and urban individuals. Our findings suggest that advances in telehealth are not benefiting all Americans equally, with aging minoritized communities continuing to engage with more strained and underresourced health systems. Future research should investigate how upstream factors such as structural racism perpetuate poor health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rates of SMM have been steadily increasing in Arkansas, a southern rural state, which has the 5th highest maternal death rate among the US states. The aims of the study were to test the functionality of the Bateman index in association to SMM, in clustering the risks of pregnancies to SMM, and to study the predictability of SMM using the Bateman index. From the ANGELS database, 72,183 pregnancies covered by Medicaid in Arkansas between 2013 and 2016 were included in this study. The expanded CDC ICD-9/ICD-10 criteria were used to identify SMM. The Bateman comorbidity index was applied in quantifying the comorbidity burden for a pregnancy. Multivariable logistic regressions, KMeans method, and five widely used predictive models were applied respectively for each of the study aims. SMM prevalence remained persistently high among Arkansas women covered by Medicaid (195 per 10,000 deliveries) during the study period. Using the Bateman comorbidity index score, the study population was divided into four groups, with a monotonically increasing odds of SMM from a lower score group to a higher score group. The association between the index score and the occurrence of SMM is confirmed with statistical significance: relative to Bateman score falling in 0–1, adjusted Odds Ratios and 95% CIs are: 2.1 (1.78, 2.46) for score in 2–5; 5.08 (3.81, 6.79) for score in 6–9; and 8.53 (4.57, 15.92) for score ≥10. Noticeably, more than one-third of SMM cases were detected from the studied pregnancies that did not have any of the comorbid conditions identified. In the prediction analyses, we observed minimal predictability of SMM using the comorbidity index: the calculated c-statistics ranged between 62% and 67%; the Precision-Recall AUC values are <7% for internal validation and <9% for external validation procedures. The comorbidity index can be used in quantifying the risk of SMM and can help cluster the study population into risk tiers of SMM, especially in rural states where there are disproportionately higher rates of SMM; however, the predictive value of the comorbidity index for SMM is inappreciable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and/or provider satisfaction and experience are among the most important indicators for quality assurance of health care services, including telehealth. Validated surveys should be used for this purpose to provide reliable information for a program evaluation. Objective: To validate the newly developed satisfaction surveys, report patient, and provider satisfaction with Antenatal and Neonatal Guidelines, Education and Learning Systems (ANGELS) telehealth services. Methods: Two self-administered paper surveys were developed by a multidisciplinary team. The surveys were validated among obstetric patients who received telehealth services in 2016 and providers in Arkansas from July to August 2017. Psychometric testing was performed to establish reliability and validity of both the surveys. Descriptive statistics was performed to describe patient and provider satisfaction. Results: A total of 89 patient- and 66 provider surveys were analyzed. Construct validity and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α >0.7) were confirmed on both the surveys. The majority of patients were highly satisfied with telehealth services and reported positive perceptions toward future use of services. In the past 12 months, telehealth (78.6%) was the most used ANGELS service by providers. Finally, >90% of the providers reported high satisfaction and rated telehealth services as "excellent." Conclusions: The newly developed patient and provider telehealth surveys were reliable and valid. The surveys also demonstrated that the telehealth services were well-accepted and highly valued in a sample of obstetric patients and providers. As both surveys are short, they can be used in routine evaluation of patient and provider satisfaction with similar telehealth programs in the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many patients used telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we evaluate how different factors have affected telehealth utilization in recent years. Decision makers at the federal and state levels can use the results of this study to inform their healthcare-related policy decisions., Methods: We implemented data analytics techniques to determine the factors that explain the use of telehealth by developing a case study using data from Arkansas. Specifically, we built a random forest regression model which helps us identify the important factors in telehealth utilization. We evaluated how each factor impacts the number of telehealth patients in Arkansas counties., Results: Of the 11 factors evaluated, five are demographic, and six are socioeconomic factors. Socioeconomic factors are relatively easier to influence in the short term. Based on our results, broadband subscription is the most important socioeconomic factor and population density is the most important demographic factor. These two factors were followed by education level , computer use , and disability in terms of their importance as it relates to telehealth use., Discussion: Based on studies in the literature, telehealth has the potential to improve healthcare services by improving doctor utilization, reducing direct and indirect waiting times, and reducing costs. Thus, federal and state decision makers can influence the utilization of telehealth in specific locations by focusing on important factors. For example, investments can be made to increase broadband subscriptions, education levels, and computer use in targeted locations., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered policy changes in 2020 that allowed insurance companies to reimburse telehealth services, leading to increased telehealth use, especially in rural and underserved areas. However, with many emergency rules ending in 2022, patients and health care providers face potential challenges in accessing these services., Objective: This study analyzed telehealth use across specialties in Arkansas before and after the pandemic (2017-2022) using data from electronic medical records from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Medical Center. We explored trends in insurance coverage for telehealth visits and developed metrics to compare the performance of telehealth versus in-person visits across various specialties. The results inform insurance coverage decisions for telehealth services., Methods: We used pre- and postpandemic data to determine the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in reimbursement policies on telehealth visits. We proposed a framework to calculate 3 appointment metrics: indirect waiting time, direct waiting time, and appointment length. Statistical analysis tools were used to compare the performance of telehealth and in-person visits across the following specialties: obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, family medicine, gerontology, internal medicine, neurology, and neurosurgery. We used data from approximately 4 million in-person visits and 300,000 telehealth visits collected from 2017 to 2022., Results: Our analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in telehealth visits across all specialties (P<.001), showing an 89% increase from 51,589 visits in 2019 to 97,461 visits in 2020, followed by a 21% increase to 117,730 visits in 2021. Around 92.57% (134,221/145,001) of telehealth patients from 2020 to 2022 were covered by Medicare, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, commercial and managed care, Medicaid, and Medicare Managed Care. In-person visits covered by Medicare and Medicaid decreased by 15%, from 313,196 in 2019 to 264,696 in 2022. During 2020 to 2022, about 22.84% (33,123/145,001) of total telehealth visits during this period were covered by Medicare and 53.58% (86,317/161,092) were in psychiatry, obstetrics and gynecology, and family medicine. We noticed a statistically significant decrease (P<.001) in the average indirect waiting time for telehealth visits, from 48.4 to 27.7 days, and a statistically significant reduction in appointment length, from 93.2 minutes in 2020 to 39.59 minutes in 2022. The indirect waiting time for psychiatry telehealth visits was almost 50% shorter than that for in-person visits. These findings highlight the potential benefits of telehealth in providing access to health care, particularly for patients needing psychiatric care., Conclusions: Reverting to prepandemic regulations could negatively affect Arkansas, where many live in underserved areas. Our analysis shows that telehealth use remained stable beyond 2020, with psychiatry visits continuing to grow. These findings may guide insurance and policy decisions in Arkansas and other regions facing similar access challenges., (©Aysenur Betul Cengil, Sandra Eksioglu, Burak Eksioglu, Hari Eswaran, Corey J Hayes, Cari A Bogulski. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 18.10.2024.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic brought about renewed interest and investment in telehealth, while also highlighting persistent health disparities in the Southern states. Little is known about the characteristics of those utilizing telehealth services in Arkansas, a rural Southern state. We sought to compare the characteristics of telehealth utilizers and nonutilizers among Medicare beneficiaries in Arkansas before the COVID-19 public health emergency to provide a baseline for future research investigating disparities in telehealth utilization. Methods: We used Arkansas Medicare beneficiary data (2018-2019) to model telehealth use. We included interactions to assess how the association between the number of chronic conditions and telehealth was moderated by race/ethnicity and rurality, adjusted for covariates. Results: Overall telehealth utilization in 2019 was low ( n  = 4,463; 1.1%). The adjusted odds of utilizing telehealth was higher for non-Hispanic Black/African Americans (vs. white, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-1.52), rural beneficiaries (aOR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.79-2.21), and those with more chronic conditions (aOR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.21-1.25). Race/ethnicity and rurality were significant moderators, such that the association between the number of chronic conditions and telehealth was strongest among white and among rural beneficiaries. Discussion: Among the 2019 Arkansas Medicare beneficiaries, having more chronic conditions was most strongly associated with telehealth use among white and rural individuals, while the effect was not as pronounced for Black/African American and urban individuals. Our findings suggest that advances in telehealth are not benefiting all Americans equally, with aging minoritized communities continuing to engage with more strained and underresourced health systems. Future research should investigate how upstream factors such as structural racism perpetuate poor health outcomes.

Objective: We aim to evaluate the effects of the telemedicine program, High-Risk Pregnancy Program at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), on health services utilization and medical expenditures among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes and their newborns., Research Design and Methods: The study sample was selected from the Arkansas Medicaid claims linked to infant birth/death certificates and UAMS telemedicine records from 2013 through 2016. We used propensity score matching based on participants' characteristics to create three groups - UAMS telemedicine care, UAMS in-person care, and non-UAMS prenatal care. We compared inpatient and outpatient care services, medication use and caesarean section rates, severe maternal morbidity, infant mortality and preterm birth rates and medical expenditures., Results: The UAMS telemedicine group had fewer inpatient admissions (1.18 vs 1.31; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.00), lower insulin use rates (41.86% vs 59.88%; 95% CI: -29.00%, -7.05%) and lower maternal care expenditures ($7,846 vs $10,644; 95% CI: -$4,089, -$1,507) compared with the UAMS in-person care group. Women receiving UAMS telemedicine had more prenatal care visits (10.45 vs 8.57; 95% CI: -2.96, -0.81), higher insulin use rates (41.86% vs 26.74%: 95% CI: 4.63%, 25.60%) and similar maternal care expenditures ($7,846 vs $7,051), compared with those receiving non-UAMS in-person care. Caesarean section, severe maternal morbidity, and infant mortality rates were similar across the three groups., Conclusion: UAMS telemedicine was associated with improved utilization of prenatal care among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Telemedicine services did not differ from usual in-person services in clinical outcomes and medical expenditures., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patient and/or provider satisfaction and experience are among the most important indicators for quality assurance of health care services, including telehealth. Validated surveys should be used for this purpose to provide reliable information for a program evaluation. Objective: To validate the newly developed satisfaction surveys, report patient, and provider satisfaction with Antenatal and Neonatal Guidelines, Education and Learning Systems (ANGELS) telehealth services. Methods: Two self-administered paper surveys were developed by a multidisciplinary team. The surveys were validated among obstetric patients who received telehealth services in 2016 and providers in Arkansas from July to August 2017. Psychometric testing was performed to establish reliability and validity of both the surveys. Descriptive statistics was performed to describe patient and provider satisfaction. Results: A total of 89 patient- and 66 provider surveys were analyzed. Construct validity and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α >0.7) were confirmed on both the surveys. The majority of patients were highly satisfied with telehealth services and reported positive perceptions toward future use of services. In the past 12 months, telehealth (78.6%) was the most used ANGELS service by providers. Finally, >90% of the providers reported high satisfaction and rated telehealth services as "excellent." Conclusions: The newly developed patient and provider telehealth surveys were reliable and valid. The surveys also demonstrated that the telehealth services were well-accepted and highly valued in a sample of obstetric patients and providers. As both surveys are short, they can be used in routine evaluation of patient and provider satisfaction with similar telehealth programs in the country.