Search

Telehealth services, specifically telemedicine audio-video and audio-only patient encounters, expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic through temporary waivers and flexibilities tied to the public health emergency. Early studies demonstrate significant potential to advance the quintuple aim (patient experience, health outcomes, cost, clinician well-being, and equity). Supported well, telemedicine can particularly improve patient satisfaction, health outcomes, and equity. Implemented poorly, telemedicine can facilitate unsafe care, worsen disparities, and waste resources. Without further action from lawmakers and agencies, payment will end for many telemedicine services currently used by millions of Americans at the end of 2024. Policymakers, health systems, clinicians, and educators must decide how to support, implement, and sustain telemedicine, and long-term studies and clinical practice guidelines are emerging to provide direction. In this position statement, we use clinical vignettes to review relevant literature and highlight where key actions are needed. These include areas where telemedicine must be expanded (e.g., to support chronic disease management) and where guidelines are needed (e.g., to prevent inequitable offering of telemedicine services and prevent unsafe or low-value care). We provide policy, clinical practice, and education recommendations for telemedicine on behalf of the Society of General Internal Medicine. Policy recommendations include ending geographic and site restrictions, expanding the definition of telemedicine to include audio-only services, establishing appropriate telemedicine service codes, and expanding broadband access to all Americans. Clinical practice recommendations include ensuring appropriate telemedicine use (for limited acute care situations or in conjunction with in-person services to extend longitudinal care relationships), that the choice of modality be done through patient-clinician shared decision-making, and that health systems design telemedicine services through community partnerships to ensure equitable implementation. Education recommendations include developing telemedicine-specific educational strategies for trainees that align with accreditation body competencies and providing educators with protected time and faculty development resources.

Background: Non-white patients with childhood cancer have worse survival than Non-Hispanic (NH) White patients for many childhood cancers in the United States. We examined the contribution of socioeconomic status (SES) and health insurance on racial/ethnic disparities in childhood cancer survival. Methods: We used the National Cancer Database to identify NH White, NH Black, Hispanic, and children of other race/ethnicities (<18 years) diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2015. SES was measured by the area-level social deprivation index (SDI) at patient residence and categorized into tertiles. Health insurance coverage at diagnosis was categorized as private, Medicaid, and uninsured. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare survival by race/ethnicity. We examined the contribution of health insurance and SES by sequentially adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics (age group, sex, region, metropolitan statistical area, year of diagnosis, and number of conditions other than cancer), health insurance, and SDI. Results: Compared with NH Whites, NH Blacks and Hispanics had worse survival for all cancers combined, leukemias and lymphomas, brain tumors, and solid tumors (all P < 0.05). Survival differences were attenuated after adjusting for health insurance and SDI separately; and further attenuated after adjusting for insurance and SDI together. Conclusions: Both SES and health insurance contributed to racial/ethnic disparities in childhood cancer survival. Impact: Improving health insurance coverage and access to care for children, especially those with low SES, may mitigate racial/ethnic survival disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a rapid, transformative adoption of telemedicine to maintain patient access to care. As clinicians made the shift from in-person to virtual practice, they faced a paucity of established and reliable clinical examination standards for virtual care settings. In this systematic review, we summarize the accuracy and reliability of virtual assessments compared with traditional in-person examination tools. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception through September 2019 and included additional studies from handsearching of reference lists. We included studies that compared synchronous video (except allowing for audio-only modality for cardiopulmonary exams) with in-person clinical assessments of patients in various settings. We excluded behavioral health and dermatological assessments. Two investigators abstracted data using a predefined protocol. Results: A total of 64 studies were included and categorized into 5 clinical domains: neurological ( N  = 41), HEENT (head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat; N  = 5), cardiopulmonary ( N  = 5), musculoskeletal ( N  = 8), and assessment of critically ill patients ( N  = 5). The cognitive assessment within the neurological exam was by far the most studied ( N  = 19) with the Mini-Mental Status Exam found to be highly reliable in multiple settings. Most studies showed relatively good reliability of the virtual assessment, although sample sizes were often small (<50 participants). Conclusions: Overall, virtual assessments performed similarly to in-person exam components for diagnostic accuracy but had a wide range of interrater reliability. The high heterogeneity in population, setting, and outcomes reported across studies render it difficult to draw broad conclusions on the most effective exam components to adopt into clinical practice. Further work is needed to identify virtual exam components that improve diagnostic accuracy.

Background: Cancer and its treatment can result in lifelong medical financial hardship, which we aimed to describe among adult survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancers in the United States., Methods: We identified adult (aged ≥18 years) survivors of AYA cancers (diagnosed ages 15-39 years) and adults without a cancer history from the 2010-2018 National Health Interview Surveys. Proportions of respondents reporting measures in different hardship domains (material [eg, problems paying bills], psychological [eg, distress], and behavioral [eg, forgoing care due to cost]) were compared between groups using multivariable logistic regression models and hardship intensity (cooccurrence of hardship domains) using ordinal logistic regression. Cost-related changes in prescription medication use were assessed separately., Results: A total of 2588 AYA cancer survivors (median = 31 [interquartile range = 26-35] years at diagnosis; 75.0% more than 6 years and 50.0% more than 16 years since diagnosis) and 256 964 adults without a cancer history were identified. Survivors were more likely to report at least 1 hardship measure in material (36.7% vs 27.7%, P < .001) and behavioral (28.4% vs 21.2%, P < .001) domains, hardship in all 3 domains (13.1% vs 8.7%, P < .001), and at least 1 cost-related prescription medication nonadherence (13.7% vs 10.3%, P = .001) behavior., Conclusions: Adult survivors of AYA cancers are more likely to experience medical financial hardship across multiple domains compared with adults without a cancer history. Health-care providers must recognize this inequity and its impact on survivors' health, and multifaceted interventions are necessary to address underlying causes., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)