ArticleNorth Carolina medical journal2025
Cost Analysis of Telehealth Delivery to Children with Diabetes Mellitus Receiving Medicaid Benefits in North Carolina.
Article in North Carolina medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe financial viability of telehealth versus in-person visits is still being evaluated post-pandemic. This study used data-driven analysis to determine outcomes of telehealth in a pediatric population with diabetes, assessing financial sustainability as a health care delivery option under North Carolinas new Medicaid managed care system.
methodsA cost-consequence analysis (CCA) compared costs and outcomes between telehealth and in-clinic care at a hospital-based outpatient pediatric endocrinology practice between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022.
resultsOf 1045 Medicaid claims, the reimbursement rate was above 98% for both telehealth and in-person care. Work relative value units (wRVUs) were higher for in-clinic claims than telehealth, with an average of 2.71 (n = 935, SD = 0.370, 95% CI 2.6832.731) over 1.81 (n = 80, SD = 0.561, 95% CI 1.6951.920). No-show rates were significantly lower per month for telehealth (9.75, CI = 8.72810.772) versus in-clinic visits (48.66, CI = 48.13749.167). LIMITATIONS: A cost-consequence analysis is a quick financial tool that compares costs to health and non-health outcomes. Using this methodology, all relevant factors may not be included that could impact outcomes (patient complexity, health status).
conclusionsIn this population of pediatric patients with diabetes who utilize Medicaid in North Carolina, there was a high reimbursement rate for both telehealth and in-person care, with no difference between 5 different health plans. Utilizing telehealth minimized no-show rates and potential revenue loss. Care teams should develop stronger telehealth programs facilitating patient engagement. This data has potential to be generalizable to other chronic conditions for pediatric patients under the North Carolina Medicaid system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.