Cohort Study: Higher Telehealth Intensity May Reduce Certain Office-Based Low-Value Services in Medicare Primary Care

Background: The rapid expansion of telehealth has raised concerns about its potential to foster wasteful services, especially in primary care. While telehealth can eliminate certain in-person interventions, it might also increase unnecessary laboratory or imaging requests, given the more limited physical exam. Evaluating how telehealth intensity affects the provision of low-value care is crucial for guiding future policy and clinical practice.

Objective: To determine whether higher telehealth utilization at the practice level is associated with changes in the rates of common low-value services among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in Michigan.

Methods: Using Medicare claims data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022, this retrospective cohort employed a difference-in-differences design. A total of 577,928 beneficiaries attributed to 2,552 primary care practices were included. Practices were stratified into low, medium, or high telehealth tertiles based on the volume of virtual visits per 1,000 beneficiaries in 2022. Eight low-value services relevant to primary care were grouped into four main categories: office-based (e.g., cervical cancer screening in women older than 65), laboratory-based, imaging-based, and mixed-modality services.

Results: Among the 577,928 beneficiaries (332,100 women; mean age, 76 years), practices with high telehealth utilization had a greater reduction in office-based cervical cancer screening (−2.9 [95% CI, −5.3 to −0.4] services per 1,000 beneficiaries) and low-value thyroid testing (−40 [95% CI, −70 to −9] tests per 1,000 beneficiaries), compared with low-utilization practices. No significant association emerged for other laboratory- or imaging-based low-value services, including PSA testing for men over 75 or imaging for uncomplicated low back pain. These findings suggest that while telehealth can lower certain office-based low-value services, it does not appear to substantially increase other types of wasteful care.

Conclusions: High telehealth intensity was linked to reductions in specific low-value procedures delivered in-office, without raising the overall rates of other potentially unnecessary interventions. These data may alleviate some policy concerns that telehealth drives excessive or wasteful care due to its convenience. Instead, substituting certain in-person visits with virtual encounters might curtail opportunities for procedures with minimal clinical benefit.

Implications for Practice: For clinicians and policymakers, these results underscore the possibility that carefully implemented telehealth may reduce some low-value services. Nonetheless, sustained monitoring is needed to confirm whether telehealth encourages or discourages appropriate clinical decision-making across a broader range of interventions.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a sizable cohort, a pre- versus post-pandemic time frame, and comprehensive analysis of multiple low-value outcomes. Limitations involve the exclusive focus on beneficiaries in Michigan, the inability to capture prescription-related low-value practices (e.g., antibiotic overuse), and the reliance on claims-based measures, which lack clinical details.

Future Research: Subsequent studies should expand to different geographic areas, assess additional low-value endpoints such as overtreatment with medications, and explore whether demographic or socioeconomic factors modify telehealth’s impact on care quality.

Reference: Liu T, Zhu Z, Thompson MP, et al. Primary Care Practice Telehealth Use and Low-Value Care Services. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(11):e2445436. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.45436