Danil Makarov, MD, MHS

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the VHA. Telehealth use has increased and has the potential to improve access for patients. We examined patterns of care for VHA patients with prostate cancer, including whether visits were in person, by telephone or by video.

Methods

Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, we extracted data on all incident cases of prostate cancer from 1/1/2016-1/31/2023 with sufficient information (Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and tumor stage) to categorize into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk strata. We excluded patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis and those with no evidence of PSA testing, prostate biopsy or treatment within 2 years. We categorized all outpatient visits related to a person’s Urology- and Medical Oncology based care – including the visit modality – based on administrative visit stop codes. We defined ‘during COVID’ as visits after 3/11/2020. We calculated the percent of visits performed by modality in each year after diagnosis.

Results

Among the 60,381 men with prostate cancer, 61% were White, 33% Black; 5% Hispanic; 32% rural. For NCCN category, 30% had high risk prostate cancer, which increased with age, 50% had intermediate risk and 20% had low risk. Prior to COVID, for visits to Urology within the first year after diagnosis, 79% were in person, 20% were by telephone and 0.1% were by video. Visits to Oncology within the first year after diagnosis were similar—82% in person, 16% by phone and 0.3% by video.

Discussion

During the COVID period, video visits increased significantly but remained a small proportion, accounting for only 2% of visits for both Urology and Oncology. Video visits increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but remained rare. Across many diseases and conditions, the quality of care for video visits has been at least as good as for in-person care.

Conclusions

There is a missed opportunity to provide care by video within VHA for patients with prostate cancer, particularly given that about 1/3 of patients are from rural areas. Future analyses will examine barriers to video telehealth and the impact of video visits on quality and equity of prostate cancer care.

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the VHA. Telehealth use has increased and has the potential to improve access for patients. We examined patterns of care for VHA patients with prostate cancer, including whether visits were in person, by telephone or by video.

Methods

Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, we extracted data on all incident cases of prostate cancer from 1/1/2016-1/31/2023 with sufficient information (Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and tumor stage) to categorize into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk strata. We excluded patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis and those with no evidence of PSA testing, prostate biopsy or treatment within 2 years. We categorized all outpatient visits related to a person’s Urology- and Medical Oncology based care – including the visit modality – based on administrative visit stop codes. We defined ‘during COVID’ as visits after 3/11/2020. We calculated the percent of visits performed by modality in each year after diagnosis.

Results

Among the 60,381 men with prostate cancer, 61% were White, 33% Black; 5% Hispanic; 32% rural. For NCCN category, 30% had high risk prostate cancer, which increased with age, 50% had intermediate risk and 20% had low risk. Prior to COVID, for visits to Urology within the first year after diagnosis, 79% were in person, 20% were by telephone and 0.1% were by video. Visits to Oncology within the first year after diagnosis were similar—82% in person, 16% by phone and 0.3% by video.

Discussion

During the COVID period, video visits increased significantly but remained a small proportion, accounting for only 2% of visits for both Urology and Oncology. Video visits increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but remained rare. Across many diseases and conditions, the quality of care for video visits has been at least as good as for in-person care.

Conclusions

There is a missed opportunity to provide care by video within VHA for patients with prostate cancer, particularly given that about 1/3 of patients are from rural areas. Future analyses will examine barriers to video telehealth and the impact of video visits on quality and equity of prostate cancer care.

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the VHA. Telehealth use has increased and has the potential to improve access for patients. We examined patterns of care for VHA patients with prostate cancer, including whether visits were in person, by telephone or by video.

Methods

Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, we extracted data on all incident cases of prostate cancer from 1/1/2016-1/31/2023 with sufficient information (Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and tumor stage) to categorize into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk strata. We excluded patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis and those with no evidence of PSA testing, prostate biopsy or treatment within 2 years. We categorized all outpatient visits related to a person’s Urology- and Medical Oncology based care – including the visit modality – based on administrative visit stop codes. We defined ‘during COVID’ as visits after 3/11/2020. We calculated the percent of visits performed by modality in each year after diagnosis.

Results

Among the 60,381 men with prostate cancer, 61% were White, 33% Black; 5% Hispanic; 32% rural. For NCCN category, 30% had high risk prostate cancer, which increased with age, 50% had intermediate risk and 20% had low risk. Prior to COVID, for visits to Urology within the first year after diagnosis, 79% were in person, 20% were by telephone and 0.1% were by video. Visits to Oncology within the first year after diagnosis were similar—82% in person, 16% by phone and 0.3% by video.

Discussion

During the COVID period, video visits increased significantly but remained a small proportion, accounting for only 2% of visits for both Urology and Oncology. Video visits increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but remained rare. Across many diseases and conditions, the quality of care for video visits has been at least as good as for in-person care.

Conclusions

There is a missed opportunity to provide care by video within VHA for patients with prostate cancer, particularly given that about 1/3 of patients are from rural areas. Future analyses will examine barriers to video telehealth and the impact of video visits on quality and equity of prostate cancer care.

Background

Currently within the Veterans Health Administration, nearly 38% of VA users reside in rural areas. Approximately 70% of rural areas do not have an oncologist, resulting in a high proportion of Veterans who lack access to specialized cancer services. The National TeleOncology Service (NTO) was designed to increase access to specialty and subspecialty cancer care for Veterans regardless of geographical location, and for those who may experience additional barriers to in-person care due to medical complexity or other social determinants of health. Purpose: THRIVE focuses on health equity for telehealth-delivered cancer care. We are specifically interested in the intersection of poverty, rurality, and race. As part of this inquiry, we examined provider experiences of the NTO to better understand the benefits, drawbacks, facilitators and barriers to implementing NTO care.

Methods

We conducted two focus groups with NTO providers. We developed guides using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) and utilized rapid qualitative analysis. We arrayed data in matrices based on CFIR 2.0-based guide for analysis.

Results

The focus groups included NTO physicians (n=4) and non-physicians (n=19). Providers agreed that NTO provides valuable cancer care to Veterans facing in-person access issues. The technology is easy to use for many patients, but those in rural areas experiencing poverty struggle most. NTO’s technical support resources reduce technical skill and equipment barriers and facilitate connection for both patients and providers. Providers enjoyed the team-based approach of NTO and believed it increases care quality through access to multiple providers and resources within the clinical encounter. The NTO’s work could be strengthened by standardizing technology to facilitate records transfer and enable sharing of documentation and education between NTO and patients. Implications: This study examined providers’ perceived acceptability, feasibility, barriers, and facilitators of NTO-delivered cancer care within VA, demonstrating that NTO service is well-liked and a valuable emerging resource of VA care.

Conclusions

In an era when CMMS shifts away from reimbursing telehealth, VA has committed to continue such care providing a variety of patient-centered approaches. NTO may serve as a model for expanding telehealth-delivered care for other serious and chronic diseases and conditions.

Background

Currently within the Veterans Health Administration, nearly 38% of VA users reside in rural areas. Approximately 70% of rural areas do not have an oncologist, resulting in a high proportion of Veterans who lack access to specialized cancer services. The National TeleOncology Service (NTO) was designed to increase access to specialty and subspecialty cancer care for Veterans regardless of geographical location, and for those who may experience additional barriers to in-person care due to medical complexity or other social determinants of health. Purpose: THRIVE focuses on health equity for telehealth-delivered cancer care. We are specifically interested in the intersection of poverty, rurality, and race. As part of this inquiry, we examined provider experiences of the NTO to better understand the benefits, drawbacks, facilitators and barriers to implementing NTO care.

Methods

We conducted two focus groups with NTO providers. We developed guides using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) and utilized rapid qualitative analysis. We arrayed data in matrices based on CFIR 2.0-based guide for analysis.

Results

The focus groups included NTO physicians (n=4) and non-physicians (n=19). Providers agreed that NTO provides valuable cancer care to Veterans facing in-person access issues. The technology is easy to use for many patients, but those in rural areas experiencing poverty struggle most. NTO’s technical support resources reduce technical skill and equipment barriers and facilitate connection for both patients and providers. Providers enjoyed the team-based approach of NTO and believed it increases care quality through access to multiple providers and resources within the clinical encounter. The NTO’s work could be strengthened by standardizing technology to facilitate records transfer and enable sharing of documentation and education between NTO and patients. Implications: This study examined providers’ perceived acceptability, feasibility, barriers, and facilitators of NTO-delivered cancer care within VA, demonstrating that NTO service is well-liked and a valuable emerging resource of VA care.

Conclusions

In an era when CMMS shifts away from reimbursing telehealth, VA has committed to continue such care providing a variety of patient-centered approaches. NTO may serve as a model for expanding telehealth-delivered care for other serious and chronic diseases and conditions.

Background

Currently within the Veterans Health Administration, nearly 38% of VA users reside in rural areas. Approximately 70% of rural areas do not have an oncologist, resulting in a high proportion of Veterans who lack access to specialized cancer services. The National TeleOncology Service (NTO) was designed to increase access to specialty and subspecialty cancer care for Veterans regardless of geographical location, and for those who may experience additional barriers to in-person care due to medical complexity or other social determinants of health. Purpose: THRIVE focuses on health equity for telehealth-delivered cancer care. We are specifically interested in the intersection of poverty, rurality, and race. As part of this inquiry, we examined provider experiences of the NTO to better understand the benefits, drawbacks, facilitators and barriers to implementing NTO care.

Methods

We conducted two focus groups with NTO providers. We developed guides using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) and utilized rapid qualitative analysis. We arrayed data in matrices based on CFIR 2.0-based guide for analysis.

Results

The focus groups included NTO physicians (n=4) and non-physicians (n=19). Providers agreed that NTO provides valuable cancer care to Veterans facing in-person access issues. The technology is easy to use for many patients, but those in rural areas experiencing poverty struggle most. NTO’s technical support resources reduce technical skill and equipment barriers and facilitate connection for both patients and providers. Providers enjoyed the team-based approach of NTO and believed it increases care quality through access to multiple providers and resources within the clinical encounter. The NTO’s work could be strengthened by standardizing technology to facilitate records transfer and enable sharing of documentation and education between NTO and patients. Implications: This study examined providers’ perceived acceptability, feasibility, barriers, and facilitators of NTO-delivered cancer care within VA, demonstrating that NTO service is well-liked and a valuable emerging resource of VA care.

Conclusions

In an era when CMMS shifts away from reimbursing telehealth, VA has committed to continue such care providing a variety of patient-centered approaches. NTO may serve as a model for expanding telehealth-delivered care for other serious and chronic diseases and conditions.