No abstract

Background Telehealth is a rapidly growing modality for expanding healthcare access, especially in the post-COVID-19 era. However, telehealth requires high-quality broadband, thus making broadband a social determinant of health. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between broadband access and telehealth utilization across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Using a cross-sectional, ecological study design, we merged county-level data on broadband capacity (Microsoft's Rural Broadband Initiative), telehealth utilization among Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries from January through September 2020 (CareJourney), and county-level socioeconomic characteristics (Area Health Resources Files). Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the association between broadband capacity, county-level characteristics, and telehealth utilization. Results Among the 3107 counties, those with the greatest broadband availability (quintile 5) had 47% higher telehealth utilization compared to counties with the least broadband availability (quintile 1). In the adjusted model, a 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in broadband access was associated with a 1.54 percentage point (pp) increase in telehealth utilization (P < 0.001). Rural county designation (−1.96 pp; P < 0.001) and 1 SD increases in average Medicare beneficiary age (−1.34 pp; P = 0.001), number of nursing home beds per 1000 individuals (−0.38 pp; P = 0.002), and proportion of Native Americans/Pacific Islanders (−0.59 pp; P < 0.001) were associated with decreased telehealth utilization. Conclusion The association between broadband access and telehealth utilization and the decreased telehealth utilization in rural areas highlight the importance of broadband access for healthcare access and the need to continue investing in broadband infrastructure to promote equitable healthcare access across populations.

Background and Purpose— Industry payments to physicians raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest that could impact patient care. We explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to vascular neurologists to identify trends in compensation. Methods— Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology data, we explored financial relationships between industry and US vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics, including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers. Furthermore, we analyzed the top 1% (by compensation) of vascular neurologists with detailed payment categories, their position, and their contribution to stroke guidelines. Results— The number of board certified vascular neurologist increased from 1169 in 2013 to 1746 in 2018. The total payments to vascular neurologist increased from $99 749 in 2013 to $1 032 302 in 2018. During the study period, 16% to 17% of vascular neurologists received industry payments. Total payments from industry and mean physician payments increased yearly over this period, with consulting fee (31.1%) and compensation for services other than consulting (30.7%) being the highest paid categories. The top 10 manufacturers made the majority of the payments, and the top 10 products changed from drug or biological products to devices. Physicians from south region of the United States received the highest total payment (38.72%), which steadily increased. Payments to top 1% vascular neurologists increased from 64% to 79% over the period as payments became less evenly distributed. Among the top 1%, 42% specialized in neuro intervention, 11% contributed to American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, and around 75% were key leaders in the field. Conclusions— A small proportion of US vascular neurologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period. Only 11% of the top 1% receiving industry payments have authored American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, but ≈75% seem to be key leaders in the field. Whether this influences clinical practice and behavior requires further investigation.

Background: To compare healthcare expenditure, utilization and access between nonelderly adult cancer survivors enrolled in a high deductible health plan with a health savings account (“HDHP+HSA”), HDHP without HSA (“HDHP alone”) and low deductible health plan (“LDHP”). Methods: 1735 cancer survivors, aged 18–64 years, with continuous private coverage identified from the 2012–2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: HDHP alone (n = 353), HDHP+HSA (n = 242) and LDHP (n = 1140). Healthcare expenditures, utilization and inability/delay obtaining medical care were analyzed using generalized linear regressions with inverse propensity score weighting and doubly robust estimation. Results: HDHP alone group (23,255 USD) had significantly higher total healthcare expenditure compared to HDHP+HSA (15,580 USD, p = 0.012) and LDHP (16,261 USD, p = 0.016). HDHP alone (6089 USD; p = 0.002) and HDHP+HSA (5743 USD; p = 0.012) groups had significantly higher out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure compared to LDHP (4853 USD). HDHP alone (17,128 USD, p = 0.010) and LDHP (12,645 USD, p = 0.045) had significantly higher private insurer payments compared to HDHP+HSA (9216 USD). No differences were found in utilization or inability/delay obtaining medical care across groups. Conclusions: Non-elderly adult cancer survivors with continuous coverage and comparable sociodemographic characteristics enrolled in HDHP with HSA displayed the lowest healthcare costs compared to HDHP without HSA and LDHP. HDHP+HSA had a significantly higher OOP expenditure than LDHP. No significant differences were observed in utilization or access among groups.

Background and objectives Sleep medicine has been one of the fastest-growing medical fields in recent years. The industry plays a big role in developing new medications and devices for both diagnosis and treatment of sleep-related problems. We analyzed payments made by industry to physicians from 2014 through 2018 based on the Open Payments Program data. Methods Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment Program and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology databases were explored to elicit financial relationships between industry and sleep neurologists. Results Payments made by industry to sleep neurologists have been steadily increasing from 2014 through 2018. Approximately 16% to 22% of sleep certified neurologists received payments from industry during the study period. Interestingly, the payments made to the top 10% of the sleep physicians contributed approximately 85% to 96% of the total payments. The top two categories to which the highest payments were made were compensation for services and royalty and/or licensing fees. Silenor® (doxepin), Xyrem® (sodium oxybate), Aptiom® (eslicarbazepine acetate), Belsomra® (suvorexant), and Fycompa® (perampanel) were most of the drugs, which made the highest payments, that got approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the last decade. Conclusions It seems that the industry is spending significant amounts of money in educating the physicians and in marketing the newer drugs. This analysis of the data on payments from industry is very useful in identifying any potential conflicts of interest from physicians. Further analyses are needed to study the trends of physician practice behavior and decision making.