MP39-19 INTERSTATE TELEMEDICINE FOR UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY CARE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP39-19 INTERSTATE TELEMEDICINE FOR UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY CARE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC Jason Reynolds, Adam Gadzinski, Erin Dwyer, Blair Stewart, Isabelle Abarro, Sarah Holt, and John Gore Jason ReynoldsJason Reynolds More articles by this author , Adam GadzinskiAdam Gadzinski More articles by this author , Erin DwyerErin Dwyer More articles by this author , Blair StewartBlair Stewart More articles by this author , Isabelle AbarroIsabelle Abarro More articles by this author , Sarah HoltSarah Holt More articles by this author , and John GoreJohn Gore More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002599.19AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Access to urologic care can be a significant challenge to rural patients. Due to policy changes related to telemedicine during COVID-19, restrictions on interstate telemedicine were waived by several states beginning in March 2020. The aim of this study is to evaluate telemedicine as a means of extending care to patients in rural areas in a cost-effective manner. We collected information on in-person and telemedicine visits for in-state and out-of-state patients to provide insight on delivery of care to rural patients. METHODS: From August 2019 to October 2021, all patients seen for urologic cancer care and related complaints (e.g., elevated PSA) at the University of Washington and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance in-person and via telemedicine were sent a survey after each visit. The survey queried patients about travel time, travel costs, and days of work missed. We compared out-of-state (OOS) patients (patients residing in Oregon, Alaska, Idaho, or Montana) seen in-person with those seen via telemedicine. RESULTS: We collected complete surveys for 1094 patient visits, both in-person (N=207) and telemedicine (N=887), excluding repeat visits for established patients. Among established OOS patients, those receiving care via telemedicine had decreased patient-estimated travel costs per appointment compared with those receiving care in-person (80.4% telemedicine vs 4.4% in-person visits patients reported no cost). Similarly, 82.1% of patients receiving care via telemedicine, vs 6.7% of in-person visits, reported $0 in cost for their visit. Telemedicine patients reported fewer missed days of work compared with in-person patients (2+ days of work missed for 7.9% of telemedicine patients vs 40.7% of in-person patients). Median self-reported costs for in-person visits among OOS patients were significantly higher than costs reported by Washington State residents (median $500 vs $50, respectively, p= <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine appointments for urologic oncology care for OOS patients increase access to subspecialty care for rural patients at lower cost. Extending OOS exemptions beyond the COVID-19 telemedicine waivers would permit continued delivery of high-quality urologic cancer care to rural patients. Source of Funding: Funded by a Cancer Consortium Catchment Award, ASCO Conquer Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award (AG), and SCCA Swim Across America Grant (AG) © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e673 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jason Reynolds More articles by this author Adam Gadzinski More articles by this author Erin Dwyer More articles by this author Blair Stewart More articles by this author Isabelle Abarro More articles by this author Sarah Holt More articles by this author John Gore More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...