Abstract
BACKGROUND Telehealth has emerged as an effective tool for managing common chronic conditions such as hypertension, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the impact of state telehealth payment and coverage parity laws on hypertension management remains uncertain.
METHODS Data from the MerativeTM MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters Database from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2021 were used to construct the study cohort. The sample included non-pregnant individuals aged 25–64 years with hypertension. We reviewed and coded telehealth parity laws related to hypertension management in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, distinguishing between payment parity laws and coverage parity laws. The primary outcomes were antihypertension medication use, measured by the average medication possession ratio (MPR), medication adherence (MPR ≥80%), and average number of days of drug supply. We used a generalized difference-in-difference (DID) design to examine the impact of these laws. Results were presented as marginal effects and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS Among 353,220 individuals, states with payment parity laws were significantly linked to increased average MPR by 0.43 percentage point (95% CI: 0.07 - 0.79), and an increase of 0.46 percentage point (95% CI: 0.06 - 0.92) in the probability of medication adherence. Payment parity laws also led to an average increase of 2.14 days (95% CI: 0.11 - 4.17) in antihypertensive drug supply, after controlling for state-fixed effects, year-fixed effects, individual sociodemographic characteristics and state time-varying covariates including unemployment rates, GDP per capita, and poverty rates. In contrast, coverage parity laws were associated with a 2.13-day increase (95% CI: 0.19 - 4.07) in days of drug supply, but did not significantly increase the average MPR or probability of medication adherence. In addition, telehealth payment or coverage parity laws were positively associated with the number of hypertension-related telehealth visits, but this effect did not reach statistical significance. These findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS State telehealth payment parity laws were significantly associated with greater medication adherence, whereas coverage parity laws were not. With the increasing adoption of telehealth parity laws across states, these findings may support policymakers in understanding potential implications on management of hypertension.
What Is New?Telehealth is an effective tool to manage hypertension and state-level telehealth parity laws can influence its application. Prior studies have not clearly differentiated between the impacts of payment parity and coverage parity. Using a quasi-experimental generalized difference-in-differences design, we assessed the effects of telehealth payment parity and coverage parity laws on hypertension management.
Our study found that state telehealth payment parity laws were significantly associated with increased hypertension medication adherence, while coverage parity laws were not.
What Are the Clinical Implications?The widespread adoption of telehealth payment parity laws may significantly impact hypertension management, during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
Considering that hypertension impacts approximately half of the adult population, our study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of telehealth parity laws for private payers in enhancing the management of hypertension.
With the increasing adoption of telehealth parity laws across states, integrating telehealth into hypertension management holds significant implications for the evolving U.S. healthcare system in the digital age.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Dr. Donglan Zhang received funding for this study from US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreement.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study employed secondary data analysis, using de-identified information; thus, no review by the Institutional Review Board at New York University Grossman School of Medicine or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was deemed necessary.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The authors cannot share the MarketScan° commercial claims database publicly due to the data user agreement, but the program codes will be available upon request to the corresponding author.
