Telehealth and Medicare Type 2 Diabetes Care Outcomes: Evidence From Louisiana

Effectiveness of telehealth versus in-person care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

In this systematic review, we compared the effectiveness of telehealth with in-person care during the pandemic using PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from March 2020 to April 2023. We included English-language, U.S.-healthcare relevant studies comparing telehealth with in-person care conducted after the onset of the pandemic. Two reviewers independently screened search results, serially extracted data, and independently assessed the risk of bias and strength of evidence. We identified 77 studies, the majority of which (47, 61%) were judged to have a serious or high risk of bias. Differences, if any, in healthcare utilization and clinical outcomes between in-person and telehealth care were generally small and/or not clinically meaningful and varied across the type of outcome and clinical area. For process outcomes, there was a mostly lower rate of missed visits and changes in therapy/medication and higher rates of therapy/medication adherence among patients receiving an initial telehealth visit compared with those receiving in-person care. However, the rates of up-to-date labs/paraclinical assessment were also lower among patients receiving an initial telehealth visit compared with those receiving in-person care. Most studies lacked a standardized approach to assessing outcomes. While we refrain from making an overall conclusion about the performance of telehealth versus in-person visits the use of telehealth is comparable to in-person care across a variety of outcomes and clinical areas. As we transition through the COVID-19 era, models for integrating telehealth with traditional care become increasingly important, and ongoing evaluations of telehealth will be particularly valuable.

Effect of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 5-year cohort follow-up managed by a dynamic multidisciplinary team in Northeastern Mexico

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic brought a radical shift in the healthcare system and suboptimal care for vulnerable patients, such as those with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2D). Therefore, we compared metabolic control and macro/microvascular complications of patients with T2D before and throughout the three-year SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort of subjects with T2D studied from 2018 to 2022 in Northern Mexico was treated by a dynamic multidisciplinary team. Levels of Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting serum glucose (FG), LDL-Cholesterol (LDL-C), blood pressure (BP), albuminuria, triglycerides, Body Mass Index (BMI), and FIB-4 score, micro and macrovascular complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 999 patients were studied, 51.7% males with a mean (SD) age of 60.1 (12.7) years. Adequate glycemic control based on HbA1c increased by 15.2% and 42.3% in FSG (p < 0.001) between the beginning 2018 and the end of 2022. LDL-C control decreased by 5.1% between 2018 and 2022 (p < 0.001). Systolic BP control decreased by 2.6% (p < 0.001), whereas diastolic BP control increased by 1.8% (p = 0.01) between 2018 and 2022. Albuminuria control increased by 8.5% (p = 0.002). When comparing the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of metabolic parameters between patients who developed SARS-CoV-2 vs. those who did not, AUC was statistically higher in those who developed SARS-CoV-2 (p < 0.05). Diabetic neuropathy was the most prevalent microvascular complication (n = 35; 3.6%); ischemic heart disease was the most frequent macrovascular complication (n = 11;1.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary dynamic team that adapts to the pandemic SARS-CoV-2 maintains and increases metabolic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes in Mexico. This represents a low percentage of chronic complications. The AUC of metabolic parameters of subjects with SARS-CoV-2 infection is higher, reflecting more variability in metabolic control.

[Diabetes control and visits to the family doctor during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multicenter study in primary care]

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether in patients with type 2 diabetes (DM2) the changes in their relationship with family doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person (iPC) and telematic (TC) consultations, were associated with control of their disease.

DESIGN

Multicentric study of retrospective follow-up.

SETTING

Seven health centers in Tenerife, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

3543 patients with DM2.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Sex, age, iPC, TC and DM2 control using glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) during the period 2019-2021. Logistic regression models were fitted with DM2 control as an effect, and with the other measurements as independent variables.

RESULTS

50% were women. 38% were less than 65 years old. A1c was measured in 84% of patients in 2019, 68% in 2020, and 77% in 2021. 58.4% had good control in 2019, 46.1% in 2020, and 50.3% in 2021. Median iPC were 7 in 2019, 4 in 2020 and 5 in 2021 (p<0.001). The OR(95%CI) of good control in 2019 were 1.04(1.04-1.05) per year of age and 1.03(1.01-1.04) for each iPC; In 2020 they were 1.04 (1.03-1.05) per year of age, 1.05 (1.04-1.07) for each iPC and 1.04 (1.02-1.07) for each TC; in 2021 they were 1.04 (1.04-1.05) per year of age, 1.05 (1.03-1.06) for each iPC and 1.02 (1.00-1.04) for each TC.

CONCLUSIONS

The control of patients with DM2 during the period 2019-2021 had a direct relationship with the change in the frequency of consultations at the health center, with differences depending on the type of consultation and the age of the patient.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Medical Expenditures Among Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Aged ≥67 Years With Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To compare total and out-of-pocket (OOP) medical expenditures between pre-COVID-19 (March 2019 to February 2020) and COVID-19 (March 2020 to February 2022) periods among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were from 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims. Diabetes was identified using ICD-10 codes. We calculated quarterly total and OOP medical expenditures at the population and per capita level in total and by service type. Per capita expenditures were calculated by dividing the population expenditure by the number of beneficiaries with diabetes in the same quarter. Changes in expenditures were calculated as the differences in the same quarters between the prepandemic and pandemic years.

RESULTS

Population total expenditure fell to $33.6 billion in the 1st quarter of the pandemic from $41.7 billion in the same prepandemic quarter; it then bounced back to $36.8 billion by the 4th quarter of the 2nd pandemic year. The per capita total expenditure fell to $5,356 in the 1st quarter of the pandemic from $6,500 in the same prepandemic quarter. It then increased to $6,096 by the 4th quarter of the 2nd pandemic year, surpassing the same quarter in the prepandemic year ($5,982). Both population and per capita OOP expenditures during the pandemic period were lower than the prepandemic period. Changes in per capita expenditure between the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods by service type varied.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 had a significant impact on both total and per capita medical expenditures among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with lower OOP expenditures.

Telemedicine's Impact on Diabetes Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cohort Study in a Large Integrated Healthcare System

Introduction

To examine if patients exposed to primary care telemedicine (telephone or video) early in the COVID-19 pandemic had higher rates of downstream HbA1c measurement and improved HbA1c levels in the second year of the pandemic.

Research Design and Methods

In a cohort of 242, 848 Kaiser Permanente Northern California patients with diabetes, we examined associations between early-pandemic patient-initiated telemedicine visit and downstream HbA1c monitoring and results during the second year of the pandemic.

Results

Adjusted HbA1c measurement rates were significantly higher among patients with telemedicine exposure in the early-pandemic prior year than those with no visits in the prior year (91.0% testing for patients with video visits, 90.5% for telephone visits, visits, 86.7% for no visits, p < 0.05). Among those with HbA1c measured, the rates of having an HbA1c < 8% in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic were also statistically significantly higher among patients with telemedicine exposure in the early-pandemic prior year than those with no visits in the prior year (68.5% with HbA1c< 8% for video visits, 67.3% for telephone visits, 66.6% for no visits, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Access to telephone and video telemedicine throughout the early COVID-19 pandemic was associated with patients' continued engagement in recommended diabetes care. Although our study analyzed telemedicine use during a pandemic, telemedicine visits may continue to support ongoing health care access and positive clinical outcomes.

Access to telehealth and changes in diabetes care patterns during the pandemic: evidence from a large integrated health system in the Southeast USA

INTRODUCTION

To examine the role of telehealth in diabetes care and management during versus pre-COVID-19 pandemic.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We included adults (≥18 years) with prevalent diabetes as of January 1, 2018, and continuously enrolled at Kaiser Permanente Georgia through December 31, 2021 (n=22,854). We defined pre (2018-2019) and during COVID-19 (2020-2021) periods. Logistic generalized estimating equations (GEEs) assessed the within-subject change in adherence to seven annual routine care processes (blood pressure (BP), hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), cholesterol, creatinine, urine-albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR), eye and foot examinations) pre versus during COVID-19 among telehealth users (ie, more than one telehealth visit per year per period) and non-telehealth users. Linear GEE compared mean laboratory measurements pre versus during COVID-19 by telehealth use.

RESULTS

The proportion of telehealth users increased from 38.7% (2018-2019) to 91.5% (2020-2021). During (vs pre) the pandemic, adherence to all care processes declined in telehealth (range: 1.6% for foot examinations to 12.4% for BP) and non-telehealth users (range: 1.9% for foot examinations to 40.7% for BP). In telehealth users, average HbA1c (mean difference: 0.4% (95% CI 0.2% to 0.6%), systolic BP (1.62 mm Hg (1.44 to 1.81)), and creatinine (0.03 mg/dL (0.02 to 0.04)), worsened during (vs pre) COVID-19, while low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol improved (-9.08 mg/dL (-9.77 to -8.39)). For UACR, odds of elevated risk of kidney disease increased by 48% (OR 1.48 (1.36-1.62)). Patterns were similar in non-telehealth users.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth use increased during the pandemic and alleviated some of the observed declines in routine diabetes care and management.

Telehealth Use and Healthcare Utilization Among Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From Louisiana Medicaid Claims

INTRODUCTION

The impact of telehealth use on healthcare utilization is limited, especially among Medicaid beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes. Considering the rapid adoption of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study examined associations between telehealth use and healthcare utilization among Medicaid beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Using Louisiana Medicaid claims data from March 2019 to August 2021, the associations were examined using a difference-in-difference model with propensity score weighting. Demographic characteristics, baseline comorbidities and healthcare utilization, and zip code level environmental factors were included in the analysis. The monthly frequency of healthcare services, including in-person outpatient visits, inpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits and hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) tests, were measured as outcomes. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted across different subgroups.

RESULTS

We included 48,992 beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes in the study of 27,340 beneficiaries in the telehealth group and 21,652 beneficiaries in the non-telehealth group. Of 1000 beneficiaries per month, the telehealth group had significantly more utilization compared to the non-telehealth group, with an increase of 195.049 in-person outpatient visits (95% CI: 166.169 to 223.929, p < 0.001), 3.816 inpatient visits (95% CI: 2.539 to 5.093, p < 0.001), 10.499 ED visits (95% CI: 7.287 to 13.712, p < 0.001) and 14.153 HbA1c tests (95% CI: 11.431 to 16.875, p < 0.001, respectively. Excluding beneficiaries who had ED or inpatient visits in the 30 days prior to receiving telehealth visits, overall ED visits significantly decreased for the telehealth group versus the non-telehealth group over time, by 9.456 visits (95% CI: - 12.356 to - 6.557, p < 0.001) per 1000 beneficiaries per month on average.

CONCLUSION

The study found that telehealth was associated with a significant increase in healthcare utilization in general but has the potential to decrease ED and inpatient utilization for some groups among low-income populations with diabetes.

Telehealth use and its impact on clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic

AIM

To evaluate the impact of telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic on glycaemic control and other clinical outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We used electronic health records from the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet) database for patients with type 2 diabetes who had telehealth visits and those who only received in-person care during the pandemic. A quasi-experimental method of difference-in-difference with propensity-score weighting was implemented to mitigate selection bias and to control for observed factors related to telehealth use. Outcomes included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and other clinical measures (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol, blood pressure [BP], and body mass index [BMI]).

RESULTS

Patients using telehealth had better HbA1c control compared to those receiving in-person care only during the pandemic. The telehealth group saw a significant average decrease of 0.146% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.178% to -0.1145%; P < 0.001) in HbA1c levels over time. The proportion of patients with average HbA1c levels >7% decreased by 0.023 (95% CI -0.034, -0.011; P < 0.001) in the treatment group relative to the comparison group. Modest benefits in the control of LDL cholesterol levels, diastolic BP, and BMI were found in association with telehealth use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that telehealth services contributed to better glycaemic control and management of other clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes during the pandemic. Factors unmeasured in this study would need to be further explored to better understand the impact of telehealth.

Prioritizing the primary prevention of heart failure: Measuring, modifying and monitoring risk

With the rising incidence of heart failure (HF) and increasing burden of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditures, primary prevention of HF targeting individuals in at-risk HF (Stage A) and pre-HF (Stage B) Stages has become increasingly important with the goal to decrease progression to symptomatic (Stage C) HF. Identification of risk based on traditional risk factors (e.g., cardiovascular health which can be assessed with the American Heart Association's Life's Essential 8 framework), adverse social determinants of health, inherited risk of cardiomyopathies, and identification of risk-enhancing factors, such as patients with viral disease, exposure to cardiotoxic chemotherapy, and history of adverse pregnancy outcomes should be the first step in evaluation for HF risk. Next, use of guideline-endorsed risk prediction tools such as Pooled Cohort Equations to Prevent Heart Failure provide quantification of absolute risk of HF based in traditional risk factors. Risk reduction through counseling on traditional risk factors is a core focus of implementation of prevention and may include the use of novel therapeutics that target specific pathways to reduce risk of HF, such as mineralocorticoid receptor agonists (e.g., fineronone), angiotensin-receptor/neprolysin inhibitors, and sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. These interventions may be limited in at-risk populations who experience adverse social determinants and/or individuals who reside in rural areas. Thus, strategies like telemedicine may improve access to preventive care. Gaps in the current knowledge base for risk-based prevention of HF are highlighted to outline future research that may target approaches for risk assessment and risk-based prevention with the use of artificial intelligence, genomics-enhanced strategies, and pragmatic trials to develop a guideline-directed medical therapy approach to reduce risk among individuals with Stage A and Stage B HF.

Impact of Telemedicine Modality on Quality Metrics in Diverse Settings: Implementation Science-Informed Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Video-based telemedicine (vs audio only) is less frequently used in diverse, low socioeconomic status settings. Few prior studies have evaluated the impact of telemedicine modality (ie, video vs audio-only visits) on clinical quality metrics.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess telemedicine uptake and impact of visit modality (in-person vs video and phone visits) on primary care quality metrics in diverse, low socioeconomic status settings through an implementation science lens.

METHODS

Informed by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework, we evaluated telemedicine uptake, assessed targeted primary care quality metrics by visit modality, and described provider-level qualitative feedback on barriers and facilitators to telemedicine implementation.

RESULTS

We found marginally better quality metrics (ie, blood pressure and depression screening) for in-person care versus video and phone visits; de-adoption of telemedicine was marked within 2 years in our population.

CONCLUSIONS

Following the widespread implementation of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of visit modality on quality outcomes, provider and patient preferences, as well as technological barriers in historically marginalized settings should be considered.