Literature DB >> 27144986

Effect of Teledermatology on Access to Dermatology Care Among Medicaid Enrollees.

Lori Uscher-Pines1, Rosalie Malsberger1, Lane Burgette1, Andrew Mulcahy1, Ateev Mehrotra2.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Access to specialists such as dermatologists is often limited for Medicaid enrollees. Teledermatology has been promoted as a potential solution; however, its effect on access to care at the population level has rarely been assessed.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of teledermatology on the number of Medicaid enrollees who received dermatology care and to describe which patients were most likely to be referred to teledermatology. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Claims data from a large California Medicaid managed care plan that began offering teledermatology as a covered service in April 2012 were analyzed. The plan enrolled 382 801 patients in California's Central Valley, including 108 480 newly enrolled patients who obtained coverage after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Rates of dermatology visits by patients affiliated with primary care practices that referred patients to teledermatology and those that did not were compared. Data were collected from April 1, 2012, through December 31, 2014, and assessed from March 1 to October 15, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The percentage of patients with at least 1 visit to a dermatologist (including in-person and teledermatology visits) and total visits with dermatologists (including in-person and teledermatology visits) per 1000 patients.
RESULTS: Of the 382 801 patients enrolled for at least 1 day from 2012 to 2014, 8614 (2.2%) had 1 or more visits with a dermatologist. Of all patients who visited a dermatologist, 48.5% received care via teledermatology. Among the patients newly enrolled in Medicaid, 75.7% (1474 of 1947) of those who visited a dermatologist received care via teledermatology. Primary care practices that engaged in teledermatology had a 63.8% increase in the fraction of patients visiting a dermatologist (vs 20.5% in other practices; P < .01). Compared with in-person dermatology, teledermatology served more patients younger vs older than 17 years (2600 of 4427 [58.7%] vs 1404 of 4187 [33.5%]), male patients (1849 of 4427 [41.8%] vs 1526 of 4187 [36.4%]), nonwhite patients (2779 of 4188 [66.4%] vs 1844 of 3478 [53.0%]), and individuals without comorbid conditions (1795 of 2464 [72.8%] vs 1978 of 3024 [65.4%]) (P < .001 for all comparisons). Conditions managed across settings varied; teledermatology physicians were more likely to care for viral skin lesions and acne (3405 of 7287 visits [46.7%]), whereas in-person dermatologists were more likely to care for psoriasis and skin neoplasms (10 062 of 27 347 visits [36.8%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The offering of teledermatology appeared to improve access to dermatology care among Medicaid enrollees and played an especially important role for the newly enrolled.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27144986     DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0938

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Dermatol        ISSN: 2168-6068            Impact factor:   10.282


  14 in total

1.  Dermatology-specific and all-cause 30-day and calendar-year readmissions and costs for dermatologic diseases from 2010 to 2014.

Authors:  Myron Zhang; Alina Markova; Joanna Harp; Stephen Dusza; Misha Rosenbach; Benjamin H Kaffenberger
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 11.527

2.  Comparison of Dermatologist Density Between Urban and Rural Counties in the United States.

Authors:  Hao Feng; Juliana Berk-Krauss; Paula W Feng; Jennifer A Stein
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 10.282

3.  Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of teledermatology: Where are we now, and what are the barriers to adoption?

Authors:  Robin H Wang; John S Barbieri; Harrison P Nguyen; Robert Stavert; Howard P Forman; Jean L Bolognia; Carrie L Kovarik
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2020-02-05       Impact factor: 11.527

4.  Using Network Oriented Research Assistant (NORA) Technology to Compare Digital Photographic With In-Person Assessment of Acne Vulgaris.

Authors:  Hannah M Singer; Timothy Almazan; Noah Craft; Consuelo V David; Samantha Eells; Crisel Erfe; Cynthia Lazzaro; Kathy Nguyen; Katy Preciado; Belinda Tan; Vishal A Patel
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 10.282

5.  Patient and provider experience and outcomes with synchronous teledermatology during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Saniya Shaikh; Eric S Armbrecht; Vruta Kansara; Sheetal Sethupathi; Kavita Darji; Sofia B Chaudhry
Journal:  JAAD Int       Date:  2022-06-16

6.  Cost-Effectiveness of Melanoma Screening in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Authors:  Alyce J M Anderson; Laura K Ferris; David G Binion; Kenneth J Smith
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 7.  Teledermatology Addressing Disparities in Health Care Access: a Review.

Authors:  Spandana Maddukuri; Jay Patel; Jules B Lipoff
Journal:  Curr Dermatol Rep       Date:  2021-03-12

Review 8.  Teledermatology: An updated overview of clinical applications and reimbursement policies.

Authors:  M Campagna; F Naka; J Lu
Journal:  Int J Womens Dermatol       Date:  2017-05-20

9.  Recent trends in teledermatology and teledermoscopy.

Authors:  Katie J Lee; Anna Finnane; H Peter Soyer
Journal:  Dermatol Pract Concept       Date:  2018-07-31

10.  Access to Dermatological Care with an Innovative Online Model for Psoriasis Management: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Adam R Ford; Caitlin M Gibbons; Josefina Torres; Heather A Kornmehl; Sanminder Singh; Paulina M Young; Cindy J Chambers; Emanual Maverakis; Cory A Dunnick; April W Armstrong
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 3.536

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.