Toward the development of national telehealth services: the role of Veterans Health Administration and future directions for research.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has emerged as a national and international leader in the delivery and research of telehealth-based treatment. Several unique characteristics of care in VA settings intersect to create an ideal environment for telehealth modalities and research. However, the value of telehealth experience and initiatives in VA settings is limited if telehealth strategies cannot be widely exported to other public or private systems. Whereas a hierarchical organization, such as VA, can innovate and fund change relatively quickly based on provider and patient preferences and a growing knowledge base, other health provider organizations and third-party payers may likely require replicable scientific findings over time before incremental investments will be made to create infrastructure, reform regulatory barriers, and amend laws to accommodate expansion of telehealth modalities. Accordingly, large-scale scientifically rigorous telehealth research in VHA settings is essential not only to investigate the efficacy of existing and future telehealth practices in VHA, but also to hasten the development of telehealth infrastructure in private and other public health settings. We propose an expanded partnership between the VA, NIH, and other funding agencies to investigate creative and pragmatic uses of telehealth technology. To this end, we identify six specific areas of research we believe to be particularly relevant to the efficient development of telehealth modalities in civilian and military contexts outside VHA.

Characteristics of primary care office visits to nurse practitioners, physician assistants and physicians in United States Veterans Health Administration facilities, 2005 to 2010: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND: Primary care, an essential determinant of health system equity, efficiency, and effectiveness, is threatened by inadequate supply and distribution of the provider workforce. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been a frontrunner in the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Evaluation of the roles and impact of NPs and PAs in the VHA is critical to ensuring optimal care for veterans and may inform best practices for use of PAs and NPs in other settings around the world. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of NPs and PAs in VHA primary care and to examine whether their patients and patient care activities were, on average, less medically complex than those of physicians. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of administrative data from VHA primary care encounters between 2005 and 2010. Patient and patient encounter characteristics were compared across provider types (PA, NP, and physician). RESULTS: NPs and PAs attend about 30% of all VHA primary care encounters. NPs, PAs, and physicians fill similar roles in VHA primary care, but patients of PAs and NPs are slightly less complex than those of physicians, and PAs attend a higher proportion of visits for the purpose of determining eligibility for benefits. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a highly successful nationwide primary care system relies on NPs and PAs to provide over one quarter of primary care visits, and that these visits are similar to those of physicians with regard to patient and encounter characteristics. These findings can inform health workforce solutions to physician shortages in the USA and around the world. Future research should compare the quality and costs associated with various combinations of providers and allocations of patient care work, and should elucidate the approaches that maximize quality and efficiency.

The accuracy and completeness for receipt of colorectal cancer care using Veterans Health Administration administrative data.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have established guidelines for the treatment and surveillance of colorectal cancer (CRC), respectively. Considering these guidelines, an accurate and efficient method is needed to measure receipt of care. METHODS: The accuracy and completeness of Veterans Health Administration (VA) administrative data were assessed by comparing them with data manually abstracted during the Colorectal Cancer Care Collaborative (C4) quality improvement initiative for 618 patients with stage I-III CRC. RESULTS: The VA administrative data contained gender, marital, and birth information for all patients but race information was missing for 62.1% of patients. The percent agreement for demographic variables ranged from 98.1-100%. The kappa statistic for receipt of treatments ranged from 0.21 to 0.60 and there was a 96.9% agreement for the date of surgical resection. The percentage of post-diagnosis surveillance events in C4 also in VA administrative data were 76.0% for colonoscopy, 84.6% for physician visit, and 26.3% for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test. CONCLUSIONS: VA administrative data are accurate and complete for non-race demographic variables, receipt of CRC treatment, colonoscopy, and physician visits; but alternative data sources may be necessary to capture patient race and receipt of CEA tests.

Veterans health administration hepatitis B testing and treatment with anti-CD20 antibody administration.

AIM: To evaluate pretreatment hepatitis B virus (HBV) testing, vaccination, and antiviral treatment rates in Veterans Affairs patients receiving anti-CD20 Ab for quality improvement. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a national repository of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic health record data. We identified all patients receiving anti-CD20 Ab treatment (2002-2014). We ascertained patient demographics, laboratory results, HBV vaccination status (from vaccination records), pharmacy data, and vital status. The high risk period for HBV reactivation is during anti-CD20 Ab treatment and 12 mo follow up. Therefore, we analyzed those who were followed to death or for at least 12 mo after completing anti-CD20 Ab. Pretreatment serologic tests were used to categorize chronic HBV (hepatitis B surface antigen positive or HBsAg+), past HBV (HBsAg-, hepatitis B core antibody positive or HBcAb+), resolved HBV (HBsAg-, HBcAb+, hepatitis B surface antibody positive or HBsAb+), likely prior vaccination (isolated HBsAb+), HBV negative (HBsAg-, HBcAb-), or unknown. Acute hepatitis B was defined by the appearance of HBsAg+ in the high risk period in patients who were pretreatment HBV negative. We assessed HBV antiviral treatment and the incidence of hepatitis, liver failure, and death during the high risk period. Cumulative hepatitis, liver failure, and death after anti-CD20 Ab initiation were compared by HBV disease categories and differences compared using the χ(2) test. Mean time to hepatitis peak alanine aminotransferase, liver failure, and death relative to anti-CD20 Ab administration and follow-up were also compared by HBV disease group. RESULTS: Among 19304 VHA patients who received anti-CD20 Ab, 10224 (53%) had pretreatment HBsAg testing during the study period, with 49% and 43% tested for HBsAg and HBcAb, respectively within 6 mo pretreatment in 2014. Of those tested, 2% (167/10224) had chronic HBV, 4% (326/7903) past HBV, 5% (427/8110) resolved HBV, 8% (628/8110) likely prior HBV vaccination, and 76% (6022/7903) were HBV negative. In those with chronic HBV infection, ≤ 37% received HBV antiviral treatment during the high risk period while 21% to 23% of those with past or resolved HBV, respectively, received HBV antiviral treatment. During and 12 mo after anti-CD20 Ab, the rate of hepatitis was significantly greater in those HBV positive vs negative (P = 0.001). The mortality rate was 35%-40% in chronic or past hepatitis B and 26%-31% in hepatitis B negative. In those pretreatment HBV negative, 16 (0.3%) developed acute hepatitis B of 4947 tested during anti-CD20Ab treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSION: While HBV testing of Veterans has increased prior to anti-CD20 Ab, few HBV+ patients received HBV antivirals, suggesting electronic health record algorithms may enhance health outcomes.

A novel, long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide suitable for once-daily administration in type 2 diabetes

Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) is a gastrointestinal hormone with a potentially therapeutic role in type 2 diabetes. Rapid degradation by dipeptidylpeptidase IV has prompted the development of enzyme-resistant N-terminally modified analogs, but renal clearance still limits in vivo bioactivity. In this study, we report long-term antidiabetic effects of a novel, N-terminally protected, fatty acid-derivatized analog of GIP, N-AcGIP(LysPAL(37)), in obese diabetic (ob/ob) mice. Once-daily injections of N-AcGIP(LysPAL(37)) over a 14-day period significantly decreased plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and improved glucose tolerance compared with ob/ob mice treated with saline or native GIP. Plasma insulin and pancreatic insulin content were significantly increased by N-AcGIP(LysPAL(37)). This was accompanied by a significant enhancement in the insulin response to glucose together with a notable improvement of insulin sensitivity. No evidence was found for GIP receptor desensitization and the metabolic effects of NAcGIP(LysPAL(37)) were independent of any change in feeding or body weight. Similar daily injections of native GIP did not affect any of the parameters measured. These data demonstrate the ability of once-daily injections of N-terminally modified, fatty acid-derivatized analogs of GIP, such as N-AcGIP(LysPAL(37)), to improve diabetes control and to offer a new class of agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.