Erikson, Clese

Telehealth may improve access to specialized oncology care for Medicaid beneficiaries with hematological malignancies who face geographic and financial barriers. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, telehealth use expanded rapidly, yet state policies governing telehealth coverage/payment parity varied. Evidence is limited on how these policy differences influenced oncology telehealth use for Medicaid patients. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2020–2021 multistate Medicaid claims. Adult and pediatric oncology specialists were identified based on board certification data. Telehealth video visits were measured monthly at the extensive margin, defined as the proportion of specialists providing any telehealth, and the intensive margin, defined as average monthly telehealth visits among telehealth providing specialists. States were categorized by private insurance telehealth policy environment: coverage and payment parity, coverage parity only, or no or unspecified parity. Telehealth use increased sharply across all states in early 2020, rising from less than 1% of specialists before the pandemic to peak levels by April 2020. Specialists practicing in coverage and payment parity states demonstrated higher and more sustained telehealth use through 2021 compared with those in coverage only or no parity states. By December 2021, 15.1% of adult specialists in coverage and payment parity states provided telehealth, compared with 8.1% in coverage-only states and 7.8% in no-parity states. Pediatric specialists showed similar patterns, though overall telehealth use remained lower. Specialists in parity states also maintained higher monthly telehealth visit volumes over time. State-level coverage and payment parity policies may have been associated with greater and sustained telehealth provision by oncology specialists treating Medicaid beneficiaries with hematologic malignancies. Maintaining supportive telehealth policies may be essential for promoting equitable access to specialized cancer care and reducing disparities among underserved populations. These findings inform future telehealth policy decisions nationally statewide.

Mentorship Experiences Among Second-Year U.S. Hematology/Oncology Fellows in the 2019 ASH Hematology/Oncology Fellows Survey Introduction: The majority of fellows graduating from U.S. hematology/oncology training programs pursue careers incorporating both fields, albeit with a greater focus on medical oncology than on hematology. Over the past 15 years, the number of physicians in the U.S. identifying as hematologists or seeking certification in hematology has been dwarfed by those identifying as medical oncologists or seeking oncology certification, with only a small percentage of fellows having a primary interest in benign hematology. In response to these concerns, in 2017 the American Society of Hematology (ASH) launched a multiyear study of the U.S. hematology workforce in clinical practice, research, and training in collaboration with the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity at the George Washington (GW) University. The initial phase of the ASH workforce study was a survey of over 1800 hematology/oncology fellows conducted in 2018, which identified clinical exposure to hematology during training, research experiences, and mentorship to all be positively and strongly associated with career interest in hematology. A follow-up survey of second-year hematology/oncology fellows was competed in 2019, focusing on career interests, mentorship, and job expectations. The present study reports findings of second-year fellows' perceptions regarding mentorship. Methods: The 2019 Hematology/Oncology Fellows Survey was developed by ASH and GW investigators. Survey questions asked about fellows' career and research interests, clinical exposure during training, mentorship, and perceptions of job security and availability after fellowship. Mentorship questions focused on specific mentorship activities (e.g., coauthoring papers, participating in research projects, developing networking, career advice), perceived mentorship needs, and overall satisfaction with mentorship. The survey was pilot-tested in a small group of second-year hematology/oncology fellows. The final survey was sent electronically to second-year fellows in U.S. hematology/oncology fellowship programs (n = 735) in the spring of 2019 using Qualtrics. Descriptive analyses were performed using Stata 15. Results: Among 212 second-year fellows with complete responses (28.8% response rate), 5.2% declared a primary interest in benign hematology, 20.8% malignant hematology, 30.7% solid tumor oncology, and the remainder some combination of hematology and oncology. The vast majority of survey respondents (83.3%) intended to dual board in hematology and oncology. About one-third (31.9%) reported having a new or continuing mentor in benign hematology during their second year of fellowship, compared to 51.2% in malignant hematology and 60.8% in solid tumor oncology. Less than half of all fellows (45.4%) indicated that their training program had a formal mentorship program. When asked to indicate domains where they wanted more support from mentors, second-year fellows prioritized career development strategies (69.9%), job options (43.7%), optimizing fellowship experiences (41.3%), manuscript review prior to submission (19.4%), clinical trial design review (17.5%), and grant review prior to submission (17.5%). The vast majority of fellows expressed a definite (69.7%) or possible (8.7%) interest in interacting with a mentor virtually via Facebook, Skype, email, or other media if in-person mentorship meetings were not an option. Conclusions: Second-year hematology/oncology fellows in the U.S. reported a wide range of mentorship needs and interests. Most second-year fellows believe they could use more advice from mentors about career development strategies. Few fellows have a primary interest in benign hematology, and the percentage of fellows who report having mentors in benign hematology is lower than malignant hematology or solid tumor oncology. The vast majority of fellows are interested in virtual mentorship if local mentorship is not available. Further expansion of existing mentorship systems and the development of new mentorship models including virtual mentorship may improve the mentorship experience for fellows. Disclosures Connell: Michael H. Flanagan Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Key PointsClinical, research and mentorship experiences in hematology are positively associated with fellows' plans to pursue hematology-only careers.