Expansion of Telehealth Availability for Mental Health Care After State-Level Policy Changes From 2019 to 2022
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Although telehealth services expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, the association between state policies and telehealth availability has been insufficiently characterized. Objective: To investigate the associations between 4 state policies and telehealth availability at outpatient mental health treatment facilities throughout the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study measured whether mental health treatment facilities offered telehealth services each quarter from April 2019 through September 2022. The sample comprised facilities with outpatient services that were not part of the US Department of Veterans Affairs system. Four state policies were identified from 4 different sources. Data were analyzed in January 2023. Exposures: For each quarter, implementation of the following policies was indexed by state: (1) payment parity for telehealth services among private insurers; (2) authorization of audio-only telehealth services for Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beneficiaries; (3) participation in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC), permitting psychiatrists to provide telehealth services across state lines; and (4) participation in the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT), permitting clinical psychologists to provide telehealth services across state lines. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was the probability of a mental health treatment facility offering telehealth services in each quarter for each study year (2019-2022). Information on the facilities was obtained from the Mental Health and Addiction Treatment Tracking Repository based on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Behavioral Health Treatment Service Locator. Separate multivariable fixed-effects regression models were used to estimate the difference in the probability of offering telehealth services after vs before policy implementation, adjusting for characteristics of the facility and county in which the facility was located. Results: A total of 12 828 mental health treatment facilities were included. Overall, 88.1% of facilities offered telehealth services in September 2022 compared with 39.4% of facilities in April 2019. All 4 policies were associated with increased odds of telehealth availability: payment parity for telehealth services (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19), reimbursement for audio-only telehealth services (AOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.64-1.81), IMLC participation (AOR, 1.40, 95% CI, 1.24-1.59), and PSYPACT participation (AOR, 1.21, 95% CI, 1.12-1.31). Facilities that accepted Medicaid as a form of payment had lower odds of offering telehealth services (AOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) over the study period, as did facilities in counties with a higher proportion (>20%) of Black residents (AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.68). Facilities in rural counties had higher odds of offering telehealth services (AOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.48-1.88). Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that 4 state policies that were introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with marked expansion of telehealth availability for mental health care at mental health treatment facilities throughout the US. Despite these policies, telehealth services were less likely to be offered in counties with a greater proportion of Black residents and in facilities that accepted Medicaid and CHIP.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».