Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
  • Log out
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Use of Telehealth Early and Late in the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Policy Implications for Improving Health Equity

Katherine Sanchez, Heather Kitzman, Mahbuba Khan, Briget da Graca, Jeffrey Zsohar and Frank McStay
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine October 2023, 36 (5) 746-754; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230080R1
Katherine Sanchez
From the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, TX (KS, MK, BDG); UT Southwestern Medical Center, Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, Dallas, TX (HK); Baylor Scott & White Community Care Clinics (JZ); Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University (FM).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather Kitzman
From the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, TX (KS, MK, BDG); UT Southwestern Medical Center, Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, Dallas, TX (HK); Baylor Scott & White Community Care Clinics (JZ); Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University (FM).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mahbuba Khan
From the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, TX (KS, MK, BDG); UT Southwestern Medical Center, Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, Dallas, TX (HK); Baylor Scott & White Community Care Clinics (JZ); Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University (FM).
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Briget da Graca
From the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, TX (KS, MK, BDG); UT Southwestern Medical Center, Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, Dallas, TX (HK); Baylor Scott & White Community Care Clinics (JZ); Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University (FM).
JD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey Zsohar
From the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, TX (KS, MK, BDG); UT Southwestern Medical Center, Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, Dallas, TX (HK); Baylor Scott & White Community Care Clinics (JZ); Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University (FM).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frank McStay
From the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, TX (KS, MK, BDG); UT Southwestern Medical Center, Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, Dallas, TX (HK); Baylor Scott & White Community Care Clinics (JZ); Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University (FM).
MPA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care adopted telehealth rapidly to preserve access. Although policy flexibilities persist, but with in-person access restored, insight regarding long-term policy reform is needed for equitable access, especially for underserved, low income, and rural populations.

Methods: We used electronic health record data to compare primary care telehealth use in practices serving primarily commercially insured patients versus clinics serving low-income uninsured patients, in March-June 2020 (“early COVID”) and March-June 2022 (“late COVID”).

Results: Primary care visit mode differed significantly (P < .0001) between settings in both periods. In early COVID, video visits were most used in the commercially insured practices (54.50%), followed by office visits (32.76%); in the low-income, uninsured clinics, phone visits were most used (56.67%), followed by office visits (23.55%). In late COVID, 81.05% of visits to commercially insured practices and 92.04% to uninsured clinics were in-office; continuing telehealth use was primarily video. Smaller but significant (P ≤ .0001) differences in telehealth use by race/ethnicity were also observed, with Black and/or Hispanic patients less likely than White patients to use telehealth during both periods, after adjustment for other characteristics.

Conclusions: Findings demonstrate the importance of both phone and video visits in preserving primary care access early in the pandemic. Telehealth use declined in late COVID, but still accounted for ∼20% of primary care visits in the commercially insured setting and less than 10% of visits in the community care clinics. Differences in telehealth use were largely by setting, reflecting income/insurance status, indicating disparities needing to be addressed.

  • COVID-19
  • Health Equity
  • Health Policy
  • Medically Uninsured
  • Pandemics
  • Primary Health Care
  • Rural Population
  • Telemedicine

Introduction

Before the COVID-19 pandemic <2% of family medicine/primary care visits, in the United States were conducted via telehealth.1 With the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency in March 2020, many of the statutory and regulatory restrictions on use of and reimbursement for telehealth services were waived.2,3 That, combined with shelter-in-place orders implemented throughout much of the country in the second quarter of 2020, led to a rapid increase in the use of virtual care options.1 The quick transition provided an opportunity to assess the potential of telehealth to increase access to care for underserved, low income and rural populations, as well as its threat to exacerbate disparities, given the lower rates of telehealth adoption that have previously been reported in these populations.4,5 Several studies reported that telehealth during the pandemic for low-income, uninsured, racial/ethnic minority populations relied heavily on audio-only visits.6⇓–8 Depending on whether use of audio-only services is demonstrated to provide similar quality of care to video visits, that may indicate a risk for exacerbating disparities in access to care. Primary care practices noted a decrease in visits among populations that may experience barriers to accessing telemedicine – that is, patients more than 65 years, with non-English language preference, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, or Medicaid insurance, and/or nonwhite race/ethnicity – with the shift to telehealth in the early months of COVID-19,9 raising similar questions.

Currently, the public health emergency has expired on May 11, 2023.10 The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 extended many of the telehealth flexibility waivers until December 31, 2024.11 For example, the geographic and originating site restrictions were waived so that Medicare patients can continue to use telehealth services from their home, and reimbursement for audio-only telehealth services will continue to be provided.11 However, long-term decisions about how and for whom telehealth should be available, as well as about what additional support in terms of infrastructure and education that might need to be provided to make it effective, still need to be made. The evidence that is needed to guide such decisions includes how patients and providers use telehealth, both in situations where access to in-person care is limited, such as the early months of the COVID pandemic, and when in-person care has fully resumed.

Here, we examine utilization of in-office and telehealth (phone and video) primary care visits in practices serving primarily commercially insured patients versus clinics serving primarily low-income, uninsured patients in a large health care system in north Texas during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and corresponding calendar months 2 years later.

Methods

Setting

Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) is the largest not-for-profit health care system in Texas, serving patients in north and central Texas. In north Texas, primary care services are provided to commercially insured and Medicare patients by family and internal medicine practices within HealthTexas Provider Network (HTPN), a multi-specialty medical group wholly owned by BSWH. BSWH patients in north Texas who are uninsured or underinsured, and who demonstrate that their family income does not exceed 200% of the federal poverty level, receive primary care services through the 8 Baylor Community Care Clinics (BCCs), which are operated or managed and staffed by HTPN. All the practices and clinics use Epic as the enterprise electronic health record platform, share the same technological infrastructure for video visits and received the same training on its use, and participate in the same organizational-level quality initiatives (for example, implementation of the patient-centered medical home model12).

Study Design

This retrospective observational study used data extracted from Epic to compare use of telehealth (phone or video visits) for primary care visits in the commercially insured practices and those in the uninsured clinics during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 23, 2020–June 22, 2020), when shelter-in-place orders were implemented in Texas, and federal/state restrictions on the use of and reimbursement for telehealth were first waived, and late COVID-19 (March 23, 2022–June 22, 2022).

All adult patients with primary care visits during the study period were included. Primary care visits were identified based on the providers’ credentials and specialty, with visits to family medicine and internal medicine physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners included. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Baylor Scott and White Research Institute (#021 to 142) with a waiver of the requirement for written informed consent.

Data Collection and Variables

All data were extracted from Epic. Demographic data included age, sex, race/ethnicity, preferred language, marital status, and health insurance status (government issued, commercial, and uninsured/self-pay). Comorbidities (diabetes and hypertension) were identified using ICD-10 codes. The primary outcome of interest was mode of primary care visit (office, video, and phone), also obtained from Epic.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were summarized as mean and standard deviation, and categorical variables were summarized as frequency and percentages. Age was further categorized as 18 to 44, 45 to 54, 55 to 64, and ≥ 65 years. All summary statistics were presented by groups (uninsured clinics vs commercially insured practices). Chi-square tests were conducted to assess independence between 2 categorical variables.

The outcome of interest was mode of primary care visits. Distribution of socio-demographic variables were compared by group (uninsured clinics vs commercially insured practice) and by visit type (office, video, phone). The primary aim was to determine whether there was a differential distribution of socio-economic variables by group (uninsured clinics vs commercially insured practices) in using a specific mode of visit early and late in the COVID-19 pandemic era. Mode of visit was fitted using multinomial logistic regression to assess the statistical significance of group and socio-economic variables. Statistical significance was claimed when the estimated p-value was 0.0125 that accounted Bonferroni’s adjustment for multiple testing. In addition, similar models were fitted for each group (uninsured clinics and commercially insured practices) and each time point.

Results

In the early COVID-19 period, 147,657 patients had 191,468 primary care visits in commercially insured practices, and 4086 patients had 5511 primary care visits in the uninsured clinics. In the late COVID-19 period, 138,040 patients had 172,119 primary care visits in commercially insured practices and 4094 patients had 5705 primary care visits in uninsured clinics. Table 1 presents the characteristics of these 2 groups of patients. Patients seen in the clinics serving low-income, uninsured populations were younger than those seen in practices serving primarily commercially insured patients in both time periods; they were also more likely to belong to a racial/ethnic minority, and to have a diagnosis of diabetes.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of Primary Care Patients During the Early Months of COVID-19 (March 23, 2020–June 22, 2020) and Late COVID-19 (March 23, 2022–June 22, 2022) in Practices Serving Primarily Commercially Insured Patients and Clinics Serving Low-Income, Un-/Underinsured Patients

Mode of primary care visit differed significantly (P < .0001) between patient visits to commercially insured practices and uninsured clinics early and late in the COVID-19 era (Table 2). Early in COVID-19, the majority of visits in commercially insured practices were conducted via video (54.50%), followed by office visit (32.76%), with phone visits accounting for only 12.74% of encounters. In the uninsured clinics, phone visits were the most common mode (56.67%) followed by office visit (23.55%), and video visit (19.78%) (Table 2). During this early COVID-19 period, visits to uninsured clinics were 4.4 times more likely to be via the phone than visits to commercially insured practices, whereas visits to commercially insured practices were 2.8 times more likely to be via video. In the late COVID-19 period, there was a major increase in office visits at both commercially insured practices (81.05%) and uninsured clinics (92.04%), and video visits accounted for almost all continued telehealth use (18.35% of commercially insured practice visits, 5.92% of uninsured clinic visits). For the uninsured clinics, use of phone visits dramatically decreased from 56.7% to 2% between the 2 study time periods. Lastly, during late COVID-19, visits to commercially insured practices were 3.1 times more likely to be via video than visits to uninsured clinics, which were predominantly in-person.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Primary Care Visits by Mode of Visit During the Early Months of COVID-19 (March 23, 2020–June 22, 2020) and Late COVID-19 (March 23, 2022–June 22, 2022) for Practices Serving Primarily Commercially Insured Patients and Clinics Serving Low-Income, Un-/Under-insured Patients

The distribution of sociodemographic variables by the mode of visits for commercially insured versus uninsured clinics during and late COVID-19 are shown in Table 3 and 4. Early in COVID-19, in both uninsured and commercially insured clinics, use of phone visits increased with increasing age, and for both time periods a decline in video visit use as age increased was seen in both uninsured clinics and commercially insured practices. Office visit use increased with increasing age both in uninsured clinics and commercially insured practices in the late COVID-19 period. For all age groups, however, the large difference in use of phone versus video visit persisted between the uninsured clinics and commercially insured practices, and a statistically significant difference in type of visit was observed by age (P < .0001). During both periods, office visit use was greater among Hispanics than White patients in both the uninsured clinics and commercially insured practices. Statistically significant differences in visit mode were observed for race and insurance status, driven largely by differences between uninsured clinics and commercially insured practices (P = .0001, 0.0038 respectively during early COVID-19 and <0.0001, 0.0001 respectively during late COVID-19).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Primary Care Patient Characteristics by Visit Type During the Early Months of COVID-19 (March 23, 2020–June 22, 2020)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Primary Care Patient Characteristics by Visit Type for Late COVID-19 (March 23, 2022–June 22, 2022)

Among patients seen at the uninsured clinics, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to use in-person office visits than telehealth during the early COVID-19 period; among patients seen at commercially insured practices, only Hispanic patients were more likely to use in-person than telehealth visits, after adjusting for other variables. During the late COVID-19 period, both Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to use telehealth visits in both uninsured clinics and commercially insured practices.

Discussion

The widespread adoption of telehealth after relaxation of restrictions on its use and reimbursement during the COVID-19 public health emergency provided a unique opportunity to examine its potential for preserving access to care in such situations. Two years on, with telehealth billing flexibilities still largely in place as well as most access to in-person care restored, there is the additional opportunity to examine how it is used under more normal circumstances, and the extent to which it increases access to care for underserved populations.

In our retrospective analysis of telehealth use during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 2 important findings have implications for long-term telehealth policies: 1) Uptake of telehealth visits for primary care was high overall but higher in the clinics serving low-income, uninsured, racial minority patient populations than in the clinics serving commercially insured patients; and 2) Audio-only telehealth options, such as phone visits, were critical for ensuring telehealth access for both older and socially vulnerable populations. The rapid shift from almost exclusively in-person primary care services in the uninsured clinics to >75% of these visits being conducted via telehealth should allay concerns that low income, minority populations cannot or will not use telehealth-based interventions intended to increase their access to care. However, the greater drop-off in telehealth use we found in the uninsured clinics compared with the commercially insured practices during the late COVID period does raise questions about whether this is due to patient preference or barriers to telehealth use. That is, outside the context of an emergency situation such as the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic created, too great of an effort on the patient’s part may be required for telehealth to improve access.

Consistent with other studies which found that telehealth delivery of care for low-income, uninsured, racial/ethnic minority populations during the early months of the pandemic relied heavily on audio-only visits,6⇓–8 we found this was the predominant mode of telehealth primary care visits in the uninsured clinics in that period. Nonetheless, a substantial portion of visits, ∼1 in 5 overall and 1 in 4 among those age <45 years, were conducted via video visits. Further research is needed to determine whether quality of care differs between phone and video visits for primary care visits.

The greater reliance on phone visits among older age groups in both settings, as well as patients seen in the uninsured clinics in general, during the COVID-19 period may indicate substantial practical barriers to video use which may perpetuate existing disparities in health care access in the virtual context. For example, low income and minority smartphone owners are more likely to cancel or cutoff service for a period of time because of cost,13 and are also more likely to reach their maximum data limit (precluding access to video visits) for a month.13 Analyses of the broadband access necessary to support video telehealth show large disparities by race and income, with poorer and minority communities having less access.14 Data from the US Department of Health and Human Services show that Black, Latino, and Asian adults are more likely than their White counterparts to use audio rather than video telehealth services.15 If, as some research suggests,16⇓⇓–19 video visits offer superior care to phone visits, infrastructure investments in internet access and video-enabled devices will be needed to ensure equitable telehealth access. In the short-term, however, telehealth policies and related reimbursement must support less resource- and technology-intensive options, such as phone visits, to preserve access when it is threatened by emergency situations. Ensuring the goal of long-term equitable telehealth access cannot come at the price of exacerbated disparities in the short-term.

Much of the flexibility around reimbursement for providing telehealth services is time limited. Although Congress has made permanent the telehealth flexibilities related to behavioral health by extending coverage of tele-behavioral services delivered to patients in their homes and via audio-only technology, and allowing rural health centers and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to serve as distant sites for the purposes of delivering mental health services via telehealth, similar action is necessary for physical health.20,21 The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 extended many of the COVID-era telehealth flexibilities through December 2024, but permanent removal of restrictions related to site-of-service, geography, and technology that limit coverage of audio-only telehealth is needed. The latter is especially important given inequities in internet access, especially in rural areas and among people of color.15

State level policies also impact patients’ and providers’ continued ability to access and provide telehealth. Several states have already tightened the licensing rules they relaxed to enable out-of-state telehealth provision during the pandemic.22 Moreover, there is still much room for improvement in the permanent adoption of policies at the state level that ensure access to telehealth for Medicaid and private payer patients. As of fall 2022, 36 states and Washington, DC, explicitly allowed the patient’s home, and 30 states and Washington, DC, a school-based setting, to be eligible originating sites, although frequently with restrictions. Only 34 states have permanently adopted reimbursement policies for audio-only services in some capacity (again, frequently with limitations).23 Our results add to the growing evidence that coverage of audio-only telehealth services is needed to ensure access for vulnerable populations such as those covered by Medicaid. For private payers, although 43 states and Washington, DC, had laws governing reimbursement for telehealth services in 2022, only 24 states have explicit payment parity with in-person services, which is considered critical to reducing provider-side barriers to the large-scale adoption of telehealth.23

Permanent relaxation of the restrictions on provision of and reimbursement for telehealth services is necessary for improving access to and through telehealth, but it will not be sufficient. As our results as well as other studies demonstrate, patients with lower incomes and/or lower educational attainment, and belonging to racial and ethnic minorities, are significantly less likely to use video visits when engaging with telehealth,24 and, in the late COVID period examined here, used telehealth substantially less frequently for primary care. Research is needed to investigate the barriers patients and providers face in connecting through video visits, and then addressing the relevant factors – likely both internal and external to health care itself. For example, disparities in the availability (and affordability) of the broadband internet needed to support video visits (which also has important economic and societal implications),25,26 lies outside the control of the health care system and, thus, needs to be addressed by state or federal governments and/or in cooperation with other affected industries.

In contrast, health care systems’ requirements that telehealth visits be conducted through patient portals creates barriers to use27 which need to be addressed, for example, by providing navigation or digital health literacy services and/or options that allow workarounds, such as sending patients a link via text message or e-mail that enables direct access to the video visit.28 Importantly, for many patients currently facing barriers to using video visits, both the infrastructure and “usability” aspects will likely need to be addressed, meaning that, done in isolation, neither is likely to demonstrate meaningful success in improving access and use. The combination of federal policy initiatives aimed at narrowing the digital divide through investments in broadband infrastructure29 with a structured approach to telehealth readiness and development of efficient workflows for both patients and clinicians, offers a meaningful opportunity for achieving a proequity approach to the use of technology.8,30

Limitations

Although the data are from a large health care system using a robust electronic health data infrastructure, there are limitations to the findings including lack of randomization and the possibility of unmeasured confounders for which we were not able to adjust, as well as the geographic limitation of including only practice in north Texas, which may limit generalizability to states or regions with different policies impacting low income populations’ access to health care services, social determinants of health, and technology.

Conclusion

This study provides insight into use of telehealth at the beginning and 2 years into the public health emergency declared in response to COVID-19 pandemic among low-income and uninsured individuals’ and can guide future health system technology strategies for achieving equity in telemedicine efforts. Allowing and reimbursing providers for audio-only telehealth options could ensure equitable access to telehealth in the short-term. Primary care after COVID-19 will require investments in infrastructure, patient-friendly digital health tools, and digital health literacy programs to improve access to and increase use of video visits to achieve equity.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: None.

  • Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/36/5/746.full.

  • Received for publication February 28, 2023.
  • Revision received April 30, 2023.
  • Accepted for publication May 8, 2023.

References

  1. 1.↵
    The Chartis Group. Telehealth adoption tracker. Available at: https://reports.chartis.com/telehealth_trends_and_implications-2021/. Accessed March 10, 2022.
  2. 2.↵
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Policy changes during COVID-19. Available at: https://telehealth.hhs.gov/providers/policy-changes-during-the-covid-19-public-health-emergency/#:∼:text=During%20the%20COVID%2D19%20public%20health%20emergency%2C%20authorized%20providers%20can,an%20in%2Dperson%20medical%20evaluation. Accessed March 10, 2022.
  3. 3.↵
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare payment policies during COVID-19. Available at: https://telehealth.hhs.gov/providers/billing-and-reimbursement/medicare-payment-policies-during-covid-19/. Accessed March 10, 2022.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Park J,
    2. Erikson C,
    3. Han X,
    4. Iyer P
    . Are state telehealth policies associated with the use of telehealth services among underserved populations? Health Aff (Millwood) 2018;37:2060–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Nouri S,
    2. Khoong E,
    3. Lyles C,
    4. Karliner L
    . Addressing equity in telemedicine for chronic disease management during the Covid-19 pandemic. N Engl J Med Catalyst 2020.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Uscher-Pines L,
    2. Sousa J,
    3. Jones M,
    4. et al
    . Telehealth use among safety-net organizations in california during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jama 2021;325:1106–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Zachrison KS,
    2. Yan Z,
    3. Sequist T,
    4. et al
    . Patient characteristics associated with the successful transition to virtual care: Lessons learned from the first million patients. J Telemed Telecare 2021;1357633X2110155.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Rodriguez JA,
    2. Betancourt JR,
    3. Sequist TD,
    4. Ganguli I
    . Differences in the use of telephone and video telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Manag Care 2021;27:21–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Nouri S,
    2. Khoong E,
    3. Lyles CR,
    4. Karliner L
    . Addressing equity in telemedicine for chronic disease management during the Covid-19 pandemic. N Engl J Med Catalyst: Innovations in Care Delivery 2020;May 4.
  10. 10.↵
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Fact sheet: COVID-19 public health emergency transition roadmap. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/09/fact-sheet-end-of-the-covid-19-public-health-emergency.html. Published 2023. Accessed February 16, 2023.
  11. 11.↵
    Health Resources and Services Administration. Telehealth policy updates. Available at: https://telehealth.hhs.gov/providers/policy-changes-during-the-covid-19-public-health-emergency/telehealth-policy-updates/#:∼:text=The%20Consolidated%20Appropriations%20Act%20of%202023%20allows%20patients%20with%20High,to%20meet%20their%20minimum%20deductible. Accessed February 16, 2023.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Fleming NS,
    2. da Graca B,
    3. Ogola GO,
    4. et al
    . Costs of transforming established primary care practices to patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). J Am Board Fam Med 2017;30:460–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Smith A
    . Chapter one: A portrait of smartphone ownership. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/04/01/chapter-one-a-portrait-of-smartphone-ownership/#cancel-phone. Published 2015. Accessed June 9, 2020.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Tomer A,
    2. Fishbane L,
    3. Siefer A,
    4. Callahan B
    . Digital prosperity: How broadband can deliver health and equity to all communities. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/research/digital-prosperity-how-broadband-can-deliver-health-and-equity-to-all-communities/. Published 2020. Accessed June 9, 2020.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Karimi M,
    2. Lee EC,
    3. Couture SJ,
    4. et al
    . National survey trends in telehealth use in 2021: disparities in utilization and audio vs. video services. Available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/4e1853c0b4885112b2994680a58af9ed/telehealth-hps-ib.pdf. Published 2022. Accessed February 16, 2023.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Lion KC,
    2. Brown JC,
    3. Ebel BE,
    4. et al
    . Effect of telephone vs video interpretation on parent comprehension, communication, and utilization in the pediatric emergency department: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr 2015;169:1117–25.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Nouri SS,
    2. Adler-Milstein J,
    3. Thao C,
    4. et al
    . Patient characteristics associated with objective measures of digital health tool use in the United States: A literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020;27:834–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Uscher-Pines L,
    2. Mulcahy A,
    3. Cowling D,
    4. Hunter G,
    5. Burns R,
    6. Mehrotra A
    . Access and quality of care in direct-to-consumer telemedicine. Telemed J E Health 2016;22:282–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Voils CI,
    2. Venne VL,
    3. Weidenbacher H,
    4. Sperber N,
    5. Datta S
    . Comparison of telephone and televideo modes for delivery of genetic counseling: a randomized trial. J Genet Couns 2018;27:339–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare program CY 2022 payment policies under the physician fee schedule and other changes to part B payment policies; Medicare shared savings program requirements; provider enrollment regulation updates; and provider and supplier prepayment and post-payment medical review requirements. Fed Regist 2021;86:64996–6031.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Polk EC,
    2. Marks JD
    . Congress considers extending Medicare telehealth flexibilities. Available at: https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/health-highlights/congress-considers-extending-medicare-telehealth-f. Published 2022. Accessed March 10, 2022.
  22. 22.↵
    Federation of state medical boards. U.S. states and territories modifying requirements for telehealth in response to COVID-19. Available at: https://www.fsmb.org/siteassets/advocacy/pdf/states-waiving-licensure-requirements-for-telehealth-in-response-to-covid-19.pdf. Published 2022. Accessed March 10, 2022.
  23. 23.↵
    Center for Connected Health Policy. State telehealth laws and medicaid program policies: fall 2022. Available at: https://www.cchpca.org/2022/10/Fall2022_ExecutiveSummary8.pdf. Published 2022. Accessed February 16, 2023.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Karimi M,
    2. Lee EC,
    3. Couture Sj,
    4. et al
    . National survey trends in telehealth use in 2021: disparities in utilization and audio vs. video services. Available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/hps-analysis-telehealth-use-2021. Published 2022. Accessed March 10, 2022.
  25. 25.↵
    1. Frost R
    . Pandemic highlights disparities in high-speed internet service. Available at: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/pandemic-highlights-disparities-high-speed-internet-service. Published 2021. Accessed March 10, 2022.
  26. 26.↵
    1. Andreason S,
    2. Haley P,
    3. Miller S,
    4. de Zeeuw M
    . The digital divide and the pandemic: working from home and broadband and internet access. 2022. Published 2020. Accessed March 10.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Grossman LV,
    2. Masterson Creber RM,
    3. Benda NC,
    4. Wright D,
    5. Vawdrey DK,
    6. Ancker JS
    . Interventions to increase patient portal use in vulnerable populations: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019;26:855–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Intermountain Healthcare. How to prepare for a video visit. Available at: https://intermountainhealthcare.org/services/telehealth/video-visits/. Accessed March 10, 2022.
  29. 29.↵
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, (2021). Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/infrastructure-investment-jobs-act-5209581.
  30. 30.↵
    1. Rhee K,
    2. Dankwa-Mullan I,
    3. Brennan V,
    4. Clark C
    . What is techQuity? J Health Care Poor Underserved 2021;32:xiii–xviii.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 36 (5)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 36, Issue 5
September-October 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Use of Telehealth Early and Late in the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Policy Implications for Improving Health Equity
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
9 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Use of Telehealth Early and Late in the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Policy Implications for Improving Health Equity
Katherine Sanchez, Heather Kitzman, Mahbuba Khan, Briget da Graca, Jeffrey Zsohar, Frank McStay
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Oct 2023, 36 (5) 746-754; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230080R1

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Use of Telehealth Early and Late in the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Policy Implications for Improving Health Equity
Katherine Sanchez, Heather Kitzman, Mahbuba Khan, Briget da Graca, Jeffrey Zsohar, Frank McStay
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Oct 2023, 36 (5) 746-754; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230080R1
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Practicing Family Medicine in a Pandemic World: Lessons for Telemedicine, Health Care Delivery, and Mental Health Care
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • COVID-19
  • Health Equity
  • Health Policy
  • Medically Uninsured
  • Pandemics
  • Primary Health Care
  • Rural Population
  • Telemedicine

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire