Stanislav Spivak1, Amethyst Spivak1, Bernadette Cullen1, Jennifer Meuchel1, Deirdre Johnston1, Rachel Chernow1, Charee Green1, Ramin Mojtabai1. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore (S. Spivak, Cullen, Meuchel, Johnston, Mojtabai); National Trafficking Shelter Alliance, Baltimore (A. Spivak); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore (Cullen, Mojtabai); Johns Hopkins Health Systems, Baltimore (Chernow, Green).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study examined the use of telepsychiatry in U.S. mental health facilities between 2010 and 2017. METHODS: Changes over time in the availability of telepsychiatry were examined by using multiple waves of a national survey of mental health facilities. State and facility correlates of offering telepsychiatry in 2017 were examined. RESULTS: The proportion of state facilities that self-reported offering telepsychiatry increased significantly from 15.2% in 2010 to 29.2% in 2017, with wide variability among states.. In 2017, facilities with telepsychiatry were more commonly publicly owned than to have others forms of ownership (odds ratio [OR]=2.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.47-2.99, p<0.001), although the percentage of privately owned facilities offering telepsychiatry has increased significantly since 2010 (OR=2.94, 95% CI=2.14-4.05, p<.001). Facilities offering telepsychiatry had lower odds of receiving funding from Medicaid (OR=0.86, 95% CI=0.75-0.98, p<0.001) but higher odds of receiving funding from all other sources. Facilities in states that did not fund telepsychiatry had lower odds of offering these services in 2017 (OR=0.57, 95% CI=0.51-0.62, p<0.001). Telepsychiatry was more commonly offered in states with higher proportions of rural population (OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.45-1.85, p<0.001) and designated medically underserved areas (OR=1.36, 95% CI=1.25-1.47, p<0.001), compared with other states. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly twice as many U.S. mental health facilities offered telepsychiatry in 2017 than in 2010. Medicaid funding lagged behind other funding sources, suggesting state administrative barriers. Telepsychiatry was commonly used by facilities in medically underserved and rural areas.
OBJECTIVE: The study examined the use of telepsychiatry in U.S. mental health facilities between 2010 and 2017. METHODS: Changes over time in the availability of telepsychiatry were examined by using multiple waves of a national survey of mental health facilities. State and facility correlates of offering telepsychiatry in 2017 were examined. RESULTS: The proportion of state facilities that self-reported offering telepsychiatry increased significantly from 15.2% in 2010 to 29.2% in 2017, with wide variability among states.. In 2017, facilities with telepsychiatry were more commonly publicly owned than to have others forms of ownership (odds ratio [OR]=2.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.47-2.99, p<0.001), although the percentage of privately owned facilities offering telepsychiatry has increased significantly since 2010 (OR=2.94, 95% CI=2.14-4.05, p<.001). Facilities offering telepsychiatry had lower odds of receiving funding from Medicaid (OR=0.86, 95% CI=0.75-0.98, p<0.001) but higher odds of receiving funding from all other sources. Facilities in states that did not fund telepsychiatry had lower odds of offering these services in 2017 (OR=0.57, 95% CI=0.51-0.62, p<0.001). Telepsychiatry was more commonly offered in states with higher proportions of rural population (OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.45-1.85, p<0.001) and designated medically underserved areas (OR=1.36, 95% CI=1.25-1.47, p<0.001), compared with other states. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly twice as many U.S. mental health facilities offered telepsychiatry in 2017 than in 2010. Medicaid funding lagged behind other funding sources, suggesting state administrative barriers. Telepsychiatry was commonly used by facilities in medically underserved and rural areas.
Keywords:
Mental Health Treatment Facilities; Mental Health service access; Service delivery systems; Telecommunications; Telehealth
Authors: Brian E Bunnell; Nikolaos Kazantzis; Samantha R Paige; Janelle Barrera; Rajvi N Thakkar; Dylan Turner; Brandon M Welch Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-05-07
Authors: Monica K Lieng; Magi S Aurora; Young Kang; Joseph M Kim; James P Marcin; Steven R Chan; Jamie L Mouzoon; Daniel J Tancredi; Michelle Parish; Alvaro D Gonzalez; Lorin Scher; Glen Xiong; Robert M McCarron; Peter Yellowlees Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Ewelina Smoktunowicz; Azy Barak; Gerhard Andersson; Rosa M Banos; Thomas Berger; Cristina Botella; Blake F Dear; Tara Donker; David D Ebert; Heather Hadjistavropoulos; David C Hodgins; Viktor Kaldo; David C Mohr; Tine Nordgreen; Mark B Powers; Heleen Riper; Lee M Ritterband; Alexander Rozental; Stephen M Schueller; Nickolai Titov; Cornelia Weise; Per Carlbring Journal: Internet Interv Date: 2020-06-02
Authors: Connor Drake; Tyler Lian; Blake Cameron; Kate Medynskaya; Hayden B Bosworth; Kevin Shah Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 3.536