Savitz Samuel T, Stevens Maria A, Nath Bidisha, D'Onofrio Gail, Melnick Edward R, Jeffery Molly M
Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
JMIR Form Res. 2025 Jun 19;9:e66596. doi: 10.2196/66596.
Patients using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) or long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain are at risk for poor outcomes if care is interrupted. Both treatments are highly regulated, with prepandemic requirements for in-person care. COVID-19 may have resulted in barriers to accessing in-person care through disruptions in care delivery. However, there were also opportunities for improved access to telemedicine visits through policy changes.
This study aims to evaluate changes in health care and telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic among patients using buprenorphine for OUD and long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain.
We used administrative claims data for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. We included patients using buprenorphine for OUD or long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain compared to patients with another chronic condition without similar prescribing restrictions: serious mental illness. We evaluated changes in in-person and telemedicine care by comparing rates of services by physician specialty, type of service, and the percentage of visits through telemedicine. Changes in usage were measured using a difference-in-differences approach with Poisson regression. The results are presented as incident rate ratios (IRR).
We found declines in in-person visits in April 2020 across the buprenorphine, chronic opioids, and serious mental illness cohorts. The largest declines were for specialties that rely on in-person treatment, such as emergency medicine (IRR range 0.60-0.62), orthopedics (IRR 0.48-0.52), cardiology (IRR 0.64-0.78), and oncology (IRR 0.77-0.81). In contrast, there were smaller declines for specialties that could more easily transition to telemedicine, namely family practice (IRR 0.80-0.92), mental health (IRR 0.92-1.01), and pain medicine (IRR 0.87-1.08). The percentage of telemedicine visits for these specialties ranged from 30% to 51% in the period. There were also large declines for specific services, including emergency medicine (IRR 0.53-0.89), physical therapy (IRR 0.24-0.72), and new office visits (IRR 0.38-0.64). By January 2022, usage was similar to prepandemic levels, but the percentage of telemedicine visits remained elevated for family practice (10%-14%), mental health (34%-43%), and pain medicine (11%-15%) through January 2022. The results were similar across the cohorts, although in April 2020 there was a modest decrease (IRR 0.87) for pain medicine in the serious mental illness cohort, but the differences were not significant for the buprenorphine (IRR 1.08) and chronic opioids (IRR: 0.99) cohorts.
These findings highlight the value of telemedicine to maintain access among people at risk for poor outcomes if care is interrupted. While flexibilities in the regulation of telemedicine services that arose during the pandemic have been temporarily extended multiple times, they are set to expire in 2025 without further action. Making these changes to telemedicine regulation permanent may benefit vulnerable patient populations who face access to care challenges.
使用丁丙诺啡治疗阿片类物质使用障碍(OUD)或使用长效阿片类药物治疗慢性疼痛的患者,如果治疗中断,可能面临不良预后风险。这两种治疗都受到严格监管,疫情前要求面对面就诊。2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)可能通过扰乱医疗服务导致面对面就诊障碍。然而,政策变化也为改善远程医疗就诊机会带来了机遇。
本研究旨在评估COVID-19大流行期间,使用丁丙诺啡治疗OUD以及使用长效阿片类药物治疗慢性疼痛的患者在医疗保健和远程医疗使用方面的变化。
我们使用了OptumLabs数据仓库中商业保险和医疗保险优势计划患者的管理索赔数据。我们纳入了使用丁丙诺啡治疗OUD或使用长效阿片类药物治疗慢性疼痛的患者,并与患有另一种无类似处方限制的慢性病患者(严重精神疾病)进行比较。我们通过比较不同医生专业、服务类型的服务率以及远程医疗就诊的百分比,评估面对面和远程医疗护理的变化。使用泊松回归的差分法测量使用情况的变化。结果以发病率比(IRR)表示。
我们发现,2020年4月,丁丙诺啡、慢性阿片类药物和严重精神疾病队列的面对面就诊均有所下降。下降幅度最大的是依赖面对面治疗的专业,如急诊医学(IRR范围0.60 - 0.62)、骨科(IRR 0.48 - 0.52)、心脏病学(IRR 0.64 - 0.78)和肿瘤学(IRR 0.77 - 0.81)。相比之下,更容易转向远程医疗的专业下降幅度较小,即家庭医学(IRR 0.80 - 0.92)、心理健康(IRR 0.92 - 1.01)和疼痛医学(IRR 0.87 - 1.08)。在此期间,这些专业的远程医疗就诊百分比在30%至51%之间。特定服务也有大幅下降,包括急诊医学(IRR 0.53 - 0.89)、物理治疗(IRR 0.24 - 0.72)和新的门诊就诊(IRR 0.38 - 0.64)。到2022年1月,使用情况与疫情前水平相似,但到2022年1月,家庭医学(10% - 14%)、心理健康(34% - 43%)和疼痛医学(11% - 15%)的远程医疗就诊百分比仍然较高。各队列结果相似,尽管2020年4月严重精神疾病队列中的疼痛医学有适度下降(IRR 0.87),但丁丙诺啡队列(IRR 1.08)和慢性阿片类药物队列(IRR:0.99)的差异不显著。
这些发现凸显了远程医疗对于在治疗中断时可能面临不良预后风险的人群维持医疗服务可及性的价值。虽然疫情期间出现的远程医疗服务监管灵活性已多次临时延长,但如果不采取进一步行动,将于2025年到期。使这些远程医疗监管变化成为永久性措施可能会使面临医疗服务可及性挑战的弱势患者群体受益。