Impact of State Telehealth Parity Laws for Private Payers on Hypertension Management before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

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(R) 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.