Lauren A Eberly1,2,3,4, Michael J Kallan5, Howard M Julien1,3, Norrisa Haynes1,3, Sameed Ahmed M Khatana1,2,4, Ashwin S Nathan1,2,4, Christopher Snider5, Neel P Chokshi1,6, Nwamaka D Eneanya4,5,7, Samuel U Takvorian8, Rebecca Anastos-Wallen9, Krisda Chaiyachati9,10, Marietta Ambrose1,3, Rupal O'Quinn1, Matthew Seigerman1, Lee R Goldberg1, Damien Leri10, Katherine Choi10, Yevginiy Gitelman9,10, Daniel M Kolansky1, Thomas P Cappola1,3, Victor A Ferrari1, C William Hanson11, Mary Elizabeth Deleener11, Srinath Adusumalli1,2,3,4,10,11. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2. Penn Cardiovascular Outcomes, Quality, and Evaluative Research Center, Cardiovascular Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 3. Penn Cardiovascular Center for Health Equity and Social Justice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 4. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 6. Penn Center for Digital Cardiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 7. Renal-Electrolyte and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 8. Hematology and Oncology Division, Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 9. Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 10. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 11. Office of the Chief Medical Information Officer, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia.
Abstract
Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required a shift in health care delivery platforms, necessitating a new reliance on telemedicine. Objective: To evaluate whether inequities are present in telemedicine use and video visit use for telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, a retrospective medical record review was conducted from March 16 to May 11, 2020, of all patients scheduled for telemedicine visits in primary care and specialty ambulatory clinics at a large academic health system. Age, race/ethnicity, sex, language, median household income, and insurance type were all identified from the electronic medical record. Main Outcomes and Measures: A successfully completed telemedicine visit and video (vs telephone) visit for a telemedicine encounter. Multivariable models were used to assess the association between sociodemographic factors, including sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language, and the use of telemedicine visits, as well as video use specifically. Results: A total of 148 402 unique patients (86 055 women [58.0%]; mean [SD] age, 56.5 [17.7] years) had scheduled telemedicine visits during the study period; 80 780 patients (54.4%) completed visits. Of 78 539 patients with completed visits in which visit modality was specified, 35 824 (45.6%) were conducted via video, whereas 24 025 (56.9%) had a telephone visit. In multivariable models, older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.83-0.88] for those aged 55-64 years; aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.72-0.78] for those aged 65-74 years; aOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.64-0.70] for those aged ≥75 years), Asian race (aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.73]), non-English language as the patient's preferred language (aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]), and Medicaid insurance (aOR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.89-0.97]) were independently associated with fewer completed telemedicine visits. Older age (aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.76-0.82] for those aged 55-64 years; aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.74-0.83] for those aged 65-74 years; aOR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.46-0.53] for those aged ≥75 years), female sex (aOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.95]), Black race (aOR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.68]), Latinx ethnicity (aOR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and lower household income (aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.54-0.60] for income <$50 000; aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85-0.92], for $50 000-$100 000) were associated with less video use for telemedicine visits. These results were similar across medical specialties. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients scheduled for primary care and medical specialty ambulatory telemedicine visits at a large academic health system during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, older patients, Asian patients, and non-English-speaking patients had lower rates of telemedicine use, while older patients, female patients, Black, Latinx, and poorer patients had less video use. Inequities in accessing telemedicine care are present, which warrant further attention.
Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required a shift in health care delivery platforms, necessitating a new reliance on telemedicine. Objective: To evaluate whether inequities are present in telemedicine use and video visit use for telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, a retrospective medical record review was conducted from March 16 to May 11, 2020, of all patients scheduled for telemedicine visits in primary care and specialty ambulatory clinics at a large academic health system. Age, race/ethnicity, sex, language, median household income, and insurance type were all identified from the electronic medical record. Main Outcomes and Measures: A successfully completed telemedicine visit and video (vs telephone) visit for a telemedicine encounter. Multivariable models were used to assess the association between sociodemographic factors, including sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language, and the use of telemedicine visits, as well as video use specifically. Results: A total of 148 402 unique patients (86 055 women [58.0%]; mean [SD] age, 56.5 [17.7] years) had scheduled telemedicine visits during the study period; 80 780 patients (54.4%) completed visits. Of 78 539 patients with completed visits in which visit modality was specified, 35 824 (45.6%) were conducted via video, whereas 24 025 (56.9%) had a telephone visit. In multivariable models, older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.83-0.88] for those aged 55-64 years; aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.72-0.78] for those aged 65-74 years; aOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.64-0.70] for those aged ≥75 years), Asian race (aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.73]), non-English language as the patient's preferred language (aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]), and Medicaid insurance (aOR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.89-0.97]) were independently associated with fewer completed telemedicine visits. Older age (aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.76-0.82] for those aged 55-64 years; aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.74-0.83] for those aged 65-74 years; aOR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.46-0.53] for those aged ≥75 years), female sex (aOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.95]), Black race (aOR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.68]), Latinx ethnicity (aOR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and lower household income (aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.54-0.60] for income <$50 000; aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85-0.92], for $50 000-$100 000) were associated with less video use for telemedicine visits. These results were similar across medical specialties. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients scheduled for primary care and medical specialty ambulatory telemedicine visits at a large academic health system during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, older patients, Asian patients, and non-English-speaking patients had lower rates of telemedicine use, while older patients, female patients, Black, Latinx, and poorer patients had less video use. Inequities in accessing telemedicine care are present, which warrant further attention.
Authors: Hyun Gu Kang; Diane F Mahoney; Helen Hoenig; Victor A Hirth; Paolo Bonato; Ihab Hajjar; Lewis A Lipsitz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-07-14 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Lauren A Eberly; Sameed Ahmed M Khatana; Ashwin S Nathan; Christopher Snider; Howard M Julien; Mary Elizabeth Deleener; Srinath Adusumalli Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: Jedrek Wosik; Marat Fudim; Blake Cameron; Ziad F Gellad; Alex Cho; Donna Phinney; Simon Curtis; Matthew Roman; Eric G Poon; Jeffrey Ferranti; Jason N Katz; James Tcheng Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Courtney R Lyles; Anjana E Sharma; Jessica D Fields; Yaphet Getachew; Urmimala Sarkar; Laurie Zephyrin Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2022 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.707
Authors: Alexander V Kalicki; Kate A Moody; Emily Franzosa; Peter M Gliatto; Katherine A Ornstein Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Vivian Hsiao; Thevaa Chandereng; Robin L Lankton; Jeffrey A Huebner; Jeffrey J Baltus; Grace E Flood; Shannon M Dean; Amye J Tevaarwerk; David F Schneider Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 2.762