Telemedicine can effectively connect patients to clinicians across distance and time, but for several reasons (eg, lack of high-speed internet), uptake of telemedicine has been low among people in rural areas.^1,2 Telemedicine was initially promoted to close access gaps to primary care, mental health, and other essential health care services^3,4 among rural populations.⁵ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services targeted telemedicine reimbursement only for patients located in rural counties or identified health professional shortage areas.⁶ Although many programs have successfully implemented telemedicine among rural populations,^7,8 uptake remains challenging because US individuals living in rural areas had less access to digital technologies than those living in urban areas (80% vs 89%) and were less likely to have a broadband internet connection at home (72% vs 77%).^9,10

Aiming to increase care access, the national Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) initiative of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) embedded specialists, care managers, or both in primary care clinics to collaboratively care for veterans with psychiatric illness. The initiative's effects on health care use and cost patterns were examined among 5.4 million primary care patients in 396 VHA clinics in 2013-16. The median rate of patients who saw a PC-MHI provider was 6.3 percent. Each percentage-point increase in the proportion of clinic patients seen by these providers was associated with 11 percent more mental health and 40 percent more primary care visits but also with 9 percent higher average total costs per patient per year. At the mean, 2.5 integrated care visits substituted for each specialty-based mental health visit that did not occur. PC-MHI was associated with improved access to outpatient care, albeit at increased total cost to the VHA. Successful implementation of integrated care necessitates significant investment and multidisciplinary partnership within health systems.

Background: At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a rapid increase in the use of telehealth services at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which was accelerated by state and local policies mandating stay-at-home orders and restricting nonurgent in-person appointments. Even though the VA was an early adopter of telehealth in the late 1990s, the vast majority of VA outpatient care continued to be face-to-face visits through February 2020. Objective: We compared telehealth service use at a VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles across 3 clinics (primary care [PC], cardiology, and home-based primary care [HBPC]) 12 months before and 12 months after the onset of COVID-19 (March 2020). Methods: We used a parallel mixed methods approach including simultaneous quantitative and qualitative approaches. The distribution of monthly outpatient and telehealth visits, as well as telephone and VA Video Connect encounters were examined for each clinic. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 34 staff involved in telehealth services within PC, cardiology, and HBPC during COVID-19. All audiotaped interviews were transcribed and analyzed by identifying key themes. Results: Prior to COVID-19, telehealth use was minimal at all 3 clinics, but at the onset of COVID-19, telehealth use increased substantially at all 3 clinics. Telephone was the main modality of patient choice. Compared with PC and cardiology, video-based care had the greatest increase in HBPC. Several important barriers (multiple steps for videoconferencing, creation of new scheduling grids, and limited access to the internet and internet-connected devices) and facilitators (flexibility in using different video-capable platforms, technical support for patients, identification of staff telehealth champions, and development of workflows to help incorporate telehealth into treatment plans) were noted. Conclusions: Technological issues must be addressed at the forefront of telehealth evolution to achieve access for all patient populations with different socioeconomic backgrounds, living situations and locations, and health conditions. The unprecedented expansion of telehealth during COVID-19 provides opportunities to create lasting telehealth solutions to improve access to care beyond the pandemic.

Objective: Aiming to foster timely, high-quality mental health care for Veterans, VA's Primary Care–Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) embeds mental health specialists in primary care and promotes care management for depression. PC-MHI and patient-centered medical home providers work together to provide the bulk of mental health care for primary care patients with low-to-moderate-complexity mental health conditions. This study examines whether increasing primary care clinic engagement in PC-MHI services is associated with changes in patient health care utilization and costs. Methods: We performed a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of primary care patients with identified mental health needs in 29 Southern California VA clinics from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2013, using electronic administrative data (n = 66,638). We calculated clinic PC-MHI engagement as the proportion of patients receiving PC-MHI services among all primary care clinic patients in each year. Capitalizing on variation in PC-MHI engagement across clinics, our multivariable regression models predicted annual patient use of 1) non-primary care based mental health specialty (MHS) visits, 2) total mental health visits (ie, the sum of MHS and PC-MHI visits), and 3) health care utilization and costs. We controlled for year- and clinic-fixed effects, other clinic interventions, and patient characteristics. Results: Median clinic PC-MHI engagement increased by 8.2 percentage points over 5 years. At any given year, patients treated at a clinic with 1 percentage-point higher PC-MHI engagement was associated with 0.5% more total mental health visits (CI, 0.18% to 0.90%; P = .003) and 1.0% fewer MHS visits (CI, −1.6% to −0.3%; P = .002); this is a substitution rate, at the mean, of 1.5 PC-MHI visits for each MHS visit. There was no PC-MHI effect on other health care utilization and costs. Conclusions: As intended, greater clinic engagement in PC-MHI services seems to increase realized accessibility to mental health care for primary care patients, substituting PC-MHI for MHS visits, without increasing acute care use or total costs. Thus, PC-MHI services within primary care clinics may improve mental health care value at the patient population level. More research is needed to understand the relationship between clinic PC-MHI engagement and clinical quality of mental health care.

Major depressive disorder is the leading cause of disability worldwide.¹ In 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) newly recommended universal depression screening in the general adult population, with the expectation that screening would be linked to appropriate treatment.² USPSTF recognized that staff-assisted depression care directed at ensuring accurate diagnosis, appropriate follow-up, and effective treatment conferred substantial improvement in clinical outcomes and was increasingly available in primary care settings. Yet, others have disagreed³ and cited that evidence supporting the benefits of universal depression screening is too limited. For example,⁴ 2013 guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommended against routine depression screening to avoid depression overdiagnosis. Knowledge gaps in depression screening remain because few health care systems have been able to pragmatically study the population-based trajectory from screening to follow-up and treatment for those who have depression.