Original Investigation | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among US Department of Veterans Affairs Patients
Referred for Genetic Consultation to a Centralized VA Telehealth Program,
VA Medical Centers, or the Community
Maren T. Scheuner, MD, MPH; Alexis K. Huynh, PhD, MPH; Catherine Chanfreau-Coffinier, PhD; Barbara Lerner, PhD, MS; Alicia R. Gable, MPH; Martin Lee, PhD;
Alissa Simon, MA; Randall Coeshott, PhD; Alison B. Hamilton, PhD, MPH; Olga V. Patterson, PhD; Scott DuVall, PhD; Marcia M. Russell, MD
Abstract
Key Points
IMPORTANCE Telehealth enables access to genetics clinicians, but impact on care coordination
is unknown.
Question How is a centralized
telehealth model associated with care
coordination and equity of genetic
OBJECTIVE To assess care coordination and equity of genetic care delivered by centralized
services delivery?
Findings In this national cross-sectional
telehealth and traditional genetic care models.
study of 24 778 adult patients with
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study included patients referred for
genetic referrals, certain racial and
genetic consultation from 2010 to 2017 with 2 years of follow-up in the US Department of Veterans
ethnic groups were significantly less
Affairs (VA) health care system. Patients were excluded if they were referred for research,
likely to be referred to a centralized
cytogenetic, or infectious disease testing, or if their care model could not be determined.
telehealth model than traditional
genetic services, and completing
EXPOSURES Genetic care models, which included VA-telehealth (ie, a centralized team of genetic
consultations was significantly less likely
counselors serving VA facilities nationwide), VA-traditional (ie, a regional service by clinical
for Black patients referred to the
geneticists and genetic counselors), and non-VA care (ie, community care purchased by the VA).
telehealth model. Patients were more
likely to have multiple cancer preventive
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Multivariate regression models were used to assess
procedures if they completed their
associations between patient and consultation characteristics and the type of genetic care model
consultations but only if completed with
referral; consultation completion; and having 0, 1, or 2 or more cancer surveillance (eg, colonoscopy)
traditional genetic services.
and risk-reducing procedures (eg, bilateral mastectomy) within 2 years following referral.
Meaning These findings suggest that,
while a centralized telehealth model
RESULTS In this study, 24 778 patients with genetics referrals were identified, including 12 671
women (51.1%), 13 193 patients aged 50 years or older (53.2%), 15 639 White patients (63.1%), and
15 438 patients with cancer-related referrals (62.3%). The VA-telehealth model received 14 580 of
the 24 778 consultations (58.8%). Asian patients, American Indian or Alaskan Native patients, and
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients were less likely to be referred to VA-telehealth than White
may improve access to genetics
clinicians, care coordination may be
compromised, and health care
disparities may be exacerbated
compared with a traditional care model.
patients (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84) compared with the VA-traditional model. Completing
consultations was less likely with non-VA care than the VA-traditional model (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.350.57); there were no differences in completing consultations between the VA models. Black patients
were less likely to complete consultations than White patients (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.93), but
only if referred to the VA-telehealth model. Patients were more likely to have multiple cancer
+ Supplemental content
Author affiliations and article information are
listed at the end of this article.
preventive procedures if they completed their consultations (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.40-1.72) but only if
their consultations were completed with the VA-traditional model.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cross-sectional study, the VA-telehealth model was
associated with improved access to genetics clinicians but also with exacerbated health care
disparities and hindered care coordination. Addressing structural barriers and the needs and
(continued)
Open Access. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
1/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
Abstract (continued)
preferences of vulnerable subpopulations may complement the centralized telehealth approach,
improve care coordination, and help mitigate health care disparities.
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687.
Corrected on May 5, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687
Introduction
Genetic information can transform health care and improve health outcomes through better
diagnosis, prognosis, risk assessment, prevention, and targeted treatments. Clinicians with training
in medical genetics have expertise in the clinical application of genetic information.1 However,
medical genetics is a specialty that is difficult to access because of insufficient numbers of clinicians
to meet the demand, with most located in academic, metropolitan settings.1,2 New practice models
are needed to realize the potential of genomic medicine and to ensure all Americans have access to
genetic services.3
Telehealth enables the delivery of health-related services across long distances, increasing
access to care and the reach of specialized clinical expertise, like genetics.3 The use of telehealth by
clinical geneticists increased from 16% in 2015 to 33% in 2019, and telehealth became the
predominant delivery mode during the COVID-19 pandemic.3-6 However, evidence addressing the
influence of telehealth on care coordination and health care equity is lacking.7
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) oversees the largest integrated health care system in
the US,8 and health care is provided via telehealth at more than 900 sites across the country in over
50 areas of specialty care.9 In the VA, a national Virtual Health Care System is being considered to
improve accessibility and convenience of care for certain health care services.10 Genetic services
became widely available within the VA in 2010 when the VA Genomic Medicine Service launched a
model program that embodies the goals of the VA’s Virtual Health Care System. This centralized
program is staffed by a team of genetic counselors that serves about 80 VA facilities nationwide via
telehealth. Before establishing this service, very little genetic care was provided within the VA. The
earliest traditional programs were based in Houston, Texas, and Los Angeles, California, with few
referrals before 2010. Today, 6 traditional genetics programs exist comprising small teams of clinical
geneticists and genetic counselors serving patients at 1 or multiple VA facilities within a region via
multiple delivery modes.11,12 Non-VA care purchased in the community is also available if there are
long wait times or long geographic distances to VA clinicians or the required care is not available
within the VA. In 2010, standardized community care referrals for genetic consultation were
established. The purpose of this study was to assess care coordination and equity in the delivery of
genetic care for the care models available to VA patients (ie, VA-traditional, VA-telehealth, and
non-VA care) since their inception.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients referred to the 3 genetic care models in the VA. The
study was informed by the Care Coordination Measurement Framework,13 and we used the Health
Equity Implementation Framework to understand potential health care inequities.14 The VA central
institutional review board approved all study activities, and informed consent was waived because
the study was deemed minimal risk. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of
Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.
We used the VA Corporate Data Warehouse15 to identify and characterize patients with a
genetic consultation referral from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017. SQL scripts were used to
extract data from each consultation regarding patient characteristics (ie, gender, age, self-reported
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
2/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
race and ethnicity, marital status, service-connected disability, and health insurance) and
consultation characteristics (ie, year of consultation, consultation status, referral reason, referring
and receiving sites, clinician type, and mode of delivery). Natural Language Processing was used to
characterize mostly text-based data describing the referral reasons into 15 categories:
allergy-immunology; congenital disorder (including chromosomal disorders); cancer; cardiovascular
(CVD) or connective tissue disorder (CTD); endocrine or metabolic; gastrointestinal (GI) or polyposis;
hematology; nephrology or urology; neurology or psychiatry; personal use (eg, ancestry, paternity);
pharmacogenetics or exposures; pulmonary; reproductive concerns; rheumatology or autoimmune
disorders; and not specified (eg, genetic counseling, genetic screening, positive genetic finding)
(eAppendix in the Supplement). We excluded patients if their genetic consultation was submitted for
research, cytogenetic, or infectious disease testing, or if the type of genetic service model could not
be determined. Clinician type (eg, clinical geneticist, genetic counselor) was extracted from signature
blocks in the consultation notes when available. Mode of delivery (in-person, video-telehealth,
telephone, e-consultation) for the visit was extracted from administrative codes and note titles;
when unavailable, the note was searched for keywords describing the delivery mode. Cancer
surveillance (eg, mammogram, colonoscopy) and risk-reducing procedures (eg, colectomy, bilateral
mastectomy) occurring within the VA setting within 2 years following the genetics referral were
identified using current procedural terminology codes.
Statistical Analysis
We used multivariate regression models to assess associations between patient and consultation
characteristics and the following outcomes: (1) genetic care model referral (multinomial logistic
regression); (2) genetic consultation completion (binary logistic regression); and (3) having 0, 1, or 2
or more cancer surveillance and risk-reducing procedures within 2 years following the genetics
referral (ordinal logistic regression). Using interaction terms, we examined the moderating effects of
age and race or ethnicity on gender (outcomes 1-3), genetic care model on age, gender, and race or
ethnicity (outcomes 2 and 3), and genetic care model on consultation completion status (outcome 3).
Only 1.4% of the participants were excluded from the analyses because of missing data (eTable 1 in
the Supplement). We obtained robust variance estimates for all multivariate models to account for
the clustering of patients within referring facilities (VA medical centers and their associated
community-based outpatient clinics).16,17 Statistical significance was set at P < .05.
Results
Patient Characteristics
We identified 24 778 patients with a genetic consultation, including 12 671 women (51.1%), 13 193
patients aged 50 years or older (53.2%), and 15 639 White individuals 63.1% (Table 1). Patients were
referred from 114 VA facilities from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, and 14 580 of 24 778
patients (58.8%) were referred to the VA-telehealth model. There were inconsequential differences
in proportions of the demographic characteristics of patients referred from the source populations
of the VA-telehealth (n = 7 058 074) and VA-traditional (n = 1 050 855) models (eTable 2 in the
Supplement).
Consultation Characteristics
Overall, 17 597 of 24 778 patients (71.0%) completed their genetic consultation (Table 2). However,
only 1961 of 3423 patients (57.3%) completed their consultation if referred to non-VA care compared
with 5073 of 6775 patients (74.9%) with the VA-traditional model and 10 563 of 14 580 patients
(72.5%) with the VA-telehealth model, (P < .001). The median time for completion of a consultation
referred to non-VA care was almost 3 times longer than observed in either VA model (median days for
non-VA, 140 [IQR, 81-230] vs 55 days [IQR, 27-94] for the VA-traditional model and 45 days [IQR,
18-73] for the VA-telehealth model) (Table 2). The volume of referrals to all 3 models grew
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
3/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
substantially with larger proportions received in later years (ie, 2016-2017) for VA-telehealth and
non-VA care compared with the VA-traditional model. Most patients (13 951 of 14 580 [95.7%])
referred to the VA-telehealth model were from a different VA facility, whereas the VA-traditional
model had only 2585 of 6775 (38.2%) interfacility referrals. Cancer was the most common referral
reason (15 438 of 24 778 [62.3%]). However, the proportion of cancer referrals to the VA-traditional
model was significantly smaller than the VA-telehealth model and non-VA care.
Factors Associated With Type of Genetic Consultation Referral
Compared with the VA-traditional model, women were 50% more likely referred to the VA-telehealth
model (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.21-1.92; P < .001), especially Black women, and patients of
other races and ethnicities (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander, and individuals with unknown race or ethnicity) were about 50% less likely referred to the
VA-telehealth model (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84; P = .006) (Table 3). Compared with the
VA-traditional model, women were also 50% more likely to be referred to non-VA care (OR, 1.51; 95%
CI, 1.09-2.09; P = .01), and Hispanic patients were about 50% less likely to be referred to non-VA care
(OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.87; P = .01). Age, having a service-connected disability, having health
insurance, and reason for referral were not significantly associated with referral to the VA-telehealth
model or non-VA care.
Table 1. Patient Characteristics by Type of Genetic Health Care Model
Patient, No. (%)
Patient characteristics
VA-traditional model
(n = 6775)
VA-telehealth model
(n = 14 580)
Non-VA care
(n = 3423
Total
(n = 24 778)
Age, mean (SD), y
50.7 (15.3)
50.8 (14.8)
49.4 (14.2)
50.6 (14.9)
<50
3102 (45.8)
6756 (46.3)
1727 (50.4)
11.585 (46.8)
≥50
3673 (54.2)
7824 (53.7)
1696 (49.6)
13 193 (53.2)
Female
2911 (43.0)
7886 (54.1)
1874 (54.8)
12 671 (51.1)
Male
3864 (57.0)
6694 (45.9)
1549 (45.2)
12 107 (48.9)
Age groupsa
Gendera
Self-reported race and
ethnicitya
Black
1502 (22.2)
3080 (21.1)
958 (28.0)
5540 (22.4)
Hispanic
688 (10.1)
985 (6.8)
193 (5.6)
1866 (7.5)
White
3962 (58.5)
9632 (66.1)
2045 (59.8)
15 639 (63.1)
Other races and
ethnicitiesc
576 (8.5)
806 (5.5)
203 (5.9)
1585 (6.4)
Missing
47 (0.7)
77 (0.5)
24 (0.7)
148 (0.6)
Marital statusa
Married
2760 (40.7)
6683 (45.8)
1477 (43.1)
10 920 (44.1)
Not married
3973 (58.7)
7770 (53.3)
1913 (55.9)
13 656 (55.1)
Missing
42 (0.6)
127 (0.9)
33 (1.0)
202 (0.8)
Yes
4607 (68.0)
9914 (68.0)
2470 (72.2)
16 991 (68.6)
No
2168 (32.0)
4666 (32.0)
953 (27.8)
7787 (31.4)
Yes
1934 (28.5)
4770 (32.7)
1062 (31.0)
7766 (31.3)
No
4841 (71.5)
9810 (67.3)
2361 (69.0)
17 012 (68.7)
0
3568 (52.7)
7841 (53.8)
1887 (55.1)
13 296 (53.7)
1
1972 (29.1)
4389 (30.1)
990 (28.9)
7351 (29.7)
≥2
1235 (18.2)
2350 (16.1)
546 (16.0)
4131 (16.1)
Service-connected
disabilitya
Health insurancea
Cancer procedures in 2 y,
No.b
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
a
All differences in category were statistically
significant at P < .001.
b
All differences in category were statistically
significant at P = .001.
c
American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and unknown.
April 11, 2022
4/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
Completed Genetic Consultations
There were 5073 of 6775 consultations (74.9%) completed with the VA-traditional model that were
conducted in person (2638 [52%]), by telephone (1218 [24%]), by clinician-to-clinician
e-consultations (710 [14%]), and video-telehealth, (507 [10%]). Video-telehealth was the
predominant delivery mode (7606 [72%]) for the 10 563 consultations completed with the
VA-telehealth model, followed by e-consultations (2535 [24%]), in-person (211 [2%]), and telephone
(211 [2%]). We assumed all 1961 consultations completed through non-VA care were in person since
other delivery modes were not possible or not reimbursed for non-VA care during the study period.
We determined clinician types completing the consultation for 4487 of 5073 (88%) of the
VA-traditional consultations and 9807 of 10 563 (93%) of the VA-telehealth consultations. For the
VA-traditional model, 2423 (54%) were completed by geneticists, 538 (12%) by genetic counselors,
and 1526 (34%) by both. The VA-telehealth model consultations were completed mostly by genetic
counselors (9709 of 9807 [99%]), with only (98 of 9807 [1%]) completed by a geneticist, and 0
completed by both.
Factors Associated With Completing Genetic Consultations
Patient and consultation characteristics associated with completing genetic consultations are
included in Table 4. Patients referred to non-VA care compared with the VA-traditional model were
55% less likely to complete their genetic consultations (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57; P < .001). Older
patients were more likely to complete their genetic consultations (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.21; P = .01),
but this association became insignificant when moderating effects of age on gender or age on care
model were included. Black patients (OR, 0.84, 95% CI, 0.76-0.95; P = .001) and patients of other
races and ethnicities (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; P = .01) were less likely to complete their
consultations compared with White patients. However, when moderating effects of care model type
on race and ethnicity were included, the negative association for Black patients was only observed
for those referred to the VA-telehealth model, and the negative association for patients of other races
Table 2. Characteristics of Genetic Consultation Referrals by Type of Genetic Health Care Model
Patient, No. (%)
VA-traditional model
(n = 6775)
VA-telehealth model Non-VA care
(n = 14 580)
(n = 3423)
Total
(n = 24 778)
Yes
5073 (74.9)
10 563 (72.5)
1961 (57.3)
17 597 (71.0)
No
1702 (25.1)
4017 (27.5)
1462 (42.7)
7181 (29.0)
Consultation characteristics
Completea
Reason for referrala
Cancerb
3758 (55.5)
9581 (65.7)
2099 (61.3)
15 438 (62.3)
Gastrointestinal or polyposis
708 (10.5)
947 (6.5)
239 (7.0)
1894 (7.6)
Neurological or psychiatric
disorders
524 (7.7)
1008 (6.9)
234 (6.8)
1766 (7.1)
Cardiovascular or connective
tissue
439 (6.5)
612 (4.2)
159 (4.7)
1210 (4.9)
Other reasonsc
1346 (19.9)
2432 (16.7)
692 (20.2)
4470 (18.0)
2010-2011
899 (13.3)
66 (0.5)
184 (5.4)
1149 (4.7)
2012-2013
1350 (19.9)
2156 (14.8)
442 (12.9)
3948 (15.9)
2014-2015
2017 (29.8)
5724 (39.3)
785 (22.9)
8526 (34.4)
2016-2017
2509 (37.0)
6634 (45.5)
2012 (58.8)
11 155 (45.0)
Abbreviations: VA, Department of Veterans Affairs.
a
All differences in category were statistically
significant at P < .001.
b
Cancer, patients affected with cancer and unaffected
with family history of cancer, or unknown
family history.
c
Allergy-immunology, congenital disorder (including
chromosomal disorders), endocrine or metabolic,
hematology, nephrology or urology, personal use (eg,
ancestry, paternity), pharmacogenetics or
exposures, pulmonary, reproductive concerns,
rheumatology or autoimmune disorders, and not
specified (eg, genetic counseling, genetic screening,
positive genetic finding).
Year of referrala
a
Setting
On-site
4190 (61.9)
629 (4.3)
0
4819 (19.5)
Interfacility
2585 (38.2)
13 951 (95.7)
0
16 536 (66.7)
Community
Days to complete, median (IQR)
0
0
3423 (100.0)
3423 (13.8)
55 (27-94)
45 (18,73)
140 (81 230)
53 (24-96)
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
5/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
and ethnicities was only observed for those referred to non-VA care. Hispanic patients referred to
non-VA care were also less likely to complete their genetic consultation.
Factors Associated With Multiple Cancer Surveillance or Risk-Reducing Procedures
Patient and consultation characteristics associated with cancer surveillance and risk-reducig
procedures within 2 years of genetics referral are included in Table 5. Older patients and women had
twice the odds of multiple surveillance or risk-reducing procedures in the VA 2 years following their
referral (older patients: OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.85-2.15; P < .001; women: OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.72-2.32;
P < .001). Although with moderating effects of age on gender, older women were less likely to have
multiple procedures. Black patients and Hispanic patients had greater odds of multiple procedures
than White patients (Black patients: OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.44; P = .001; Hispanic patients: OR, 1.24;
95% CI, 1.06-1.45; P = .008). Although with moderating effects of race and ethnicity on gender, the
association reversed direction for Hispanic females. Patients referred for cancer or GI conditions and
polyposis had greater odds of multiple procedures than patients referred for other reasons (cancer:
OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.54-1.89; P < .001; GI conditions and polyposis: OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.29-3.65;
P < .001); whereas patients referred for neurological or psychiatric disorders had lesser odds (OR,
0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P < .001). Patients completing consultations were 55% more likely to have
multiple cancer surveillance and risk-reducing procedures (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.40-1.72; P < .001).
Table 3. Patient and Consultation Characteristics Associated With Type of Genetic Consultation Referral
VA-telehealth model (ref: VA-traditional model)
Non-VA care (ref: VA-traditional model)
Model 1a
Model 1a
Model 2b
Model 2b
Variables
OR (95% CI)
P value
OR (95% CI)
P value
OR (95% CI)
P value
OR (95% CI)
P value
Age ≥50 y (REF: <50)
1.06
(0.90-1.24)
.50
1.08
(0.85-1.39)
.52
0.94
(0.76-1.17)
.58
0.86
(0.61-1.21)
.38
Female (REF: male)
1.52
(1.21-1.92)
<.001
1.41
(1.08-1.84)
.01
1.51
(1.09-2.09)
.01
1.29
(0.86-1.91)
.22
NA
NA
0.96
(0.74-1.25)
.78
NA
NA
1.18
(0.84-1.66)
.34
0.80
(0.46-1.39)
.43
0.63
(0.36-1.06)
.08
1.16
(0.66-2.04)
.61
1.05
(0.55-2.02)
.87
NA
NA
1.56
(1.24-1.98)
<.001
NA
NA
1.25
(0.78-1.98)
.35
0.57
(0.31-1.08)
.08
0.60
(0.23-1.56)
.29
0.52
(0.31-0.87)
.01
0.47
(0.26-0.88)
.02
NA
NA
0.94
(0.40-2.22)
.88
NA
NA
1.20
(0.81-1.77)
.38
0.54
(0.35-0.84)
.006
0.50
(0.29-0.85)
.01
0.63
(0.38-1.04)
.07
0.55
(0.28-1.07)
.08
NA
NA
1.18
(0.84-1.66)
.33
NA
NA
1.30
(0.79-2.14)
.31
Married (REF: not married)
1.28
(1.01-1.61)
.04
1.28
(1.01-1.62)
.04
1.17
(0.99-1.49)
.19
1.18
(0.92-1.51)
.19
Service-connected disability (REF: not svc-connected)
0.96
(0.80-1.14)
.64
0.96
(0.80-1.14)
.62
1.11
(0.91-1.36)
.30
1.11
(0.91-1.35)
.31
Health insurance (REF: no health insurance)
1.20
(0.99-1.47)
.06
1.20
(0.98-1.46)
.07
1.15
(0.90-1.46)
.26
1.15
(0.90-1.46)
.27
1.28
(0.97-1.69)
.08
1.27
(0.96-1.68)
.10
0.99
(0.64-1.53)
.97
0.99
(0.64-1.54)
.97
Gastrointestinal or polyposis referral (REF: other )
0.77
(0.48-1.24)
.28
0.76
(0.47-1.23)
.26
0.75
(0.42-1.34)
.33
0.76
(0.42-1.36)
.36
Neurological/psychiatric referral (REF: othere)
1.10
(0.84-1.44)
.48
1.09
(0.83-1.42)
.53
0.94
(0.59-1.50)
.80
0.94
(0.59-1.50)
.80
Cardiovascular or CTD referral (REF: othere)
0.79
(0.58-1.10)
.17
0.81
(0.58-1.12)
.20
0.72
(0.43-1.19)
.20
0.72
(0.44-1.20)
.21
Age ≥50 × female (REF: age <50 × female or male)
Black race (REF: White race)
Black race × female (REF: White female or male)
Hispanic ethnicity (REF: White race)
Hispanic ethnicity × female (REF: White female or male)
Other races or ethnicitiesc (REF: White race)
Other races × female (REF: White female or male)
Cancer referrald (REF: other reasonse)
e
Abbreviations: CTD, connective tissue disorder; NA, not applicable; VA, Department of
Veterans Affairs.
a
Model 1, main effects only.
b
Model 2, main effects with age and race or ethnicity × gender interactions.
c
American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,
and unknown.
d
Patients affected with cancer and unaffected with family history of cancer.
e
Allergy-immunology, congenital disorder (including chromosomal disorders),
endocrine/metabolic, hematology, nephrology/urology, personal utility (eg, ancestry,
paternity), pharmacogenetics/exposures, pulmonary, reproductive concerns,
rheumatology/autoimmune disorders, and not specified (eg, genetic counseling,
genetic screening, positive genetic finding).
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
6/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
However, with moderating effects of care model by consultation completion status, the direction of
the association reversed for the VA-telehealth model and non-VA care, with both becoming negative.
Discussion
Like other studies comparing VA services and non-VA care,18 in this cross-sectional study, we found
that the VA genetic care models—both traditional and telehealth—had better care coordination than
non-VA care. The effectiveness and timeliness to complete genetic consultations was better with
the VA. The VA-telehealth model was associated with improved access to VA genetic services,
especially for cancer referrals, with greater capacity for growth compared with the VA-traditional
model. This is likely because of efficiencies of scale given the centralized nature of the VA-telehealth
model. Cancer genetic consultations typically result in recommendations for more cancer
Table 4. Patient and Consultation Characteristics Associated With Completing a Genetic Consultation
Model 1a
Model 2b
Model 3c
Variables
OR (95% CI)
P value
OR (95% CI)
P value
OR (95% CI)
P value
Age ≥50 (REF: age <50)
1.12 (1.03-1.21)
.01
1.04 (0.92-1.17)
.53
1.13 (0.99-1.29)
.07
Female (REF: male)
1.01 (0.90-1.31)
.91
0.94 (0.83-1.07)
.37
1.03 (0.84-1.26)
.78
Age ≥50 × female (REF: age <50 × female or male)
NA
NA
1.13 (0.98-1.31)
.09
NA
NA
Black race (REF: White race)
0.84 (0.76-0.93)
.001
0.78 (0.67-0.90)
.001
0.99 (0.86-1.14)
.88
Black race × female (REF: White race × female or male)
NA
NA
1.12 (0.92-1.37)
.25
NA
NA
Hispanic ethnicity (ref: White race)
1.08 (.80-1.46)
.62
1.33 (0.77-2.31)
.30
1.11 (0.94-1.30)
.21
Hispanic ethnicity × female (REF: White race × female or male)
NA
NA
0.68 (0.39-1.17)
.16
NA
NA
Other races or ethnicitiesd (REF: White race)
0.85 (0.76-0.96)
.01
0.83 (0.72-0.95)
.007
0.93 (0.76-1.13)
.47
Other races × female (REF: White race × female or male)
NA
NA
1.05 (0.81-1.37
.70
NA
NA
Married (REF: not married)
1.03 (0.96-1.11)
.42
1.04 (0.96-1.12)
.37
1.03 (0.96-1.11)
.44
Service-connected disability (REF: none)
1.28 (1.16-1.41)
<.001
1.28 (1.16-1.41)
<.001
1.28 (1.16-1.41)
<.001
Health insurance (REF: no health insurance)
1.41 (1.30-1.52)
<.001
1.41 (1.30-1.52
<.001
1.41 (1.30-1.52
<.001
Cancer referrale (REF: other referral reasonsf)
0.95 (0.85-1.06)
.38
0.95 (0.86-1.06)
.38
0.95 (0.85-1.05)
.33
Gastrointestinal or polyposis referral (REF: other referral reasonsf)
0.93 (0.79-1.10)
.40
0.95 (0.80-1.12)
.55
0.93 (0.79-1.10)
.39
Cardiovascular or CTD referral (REF: other referral reasonsf)
1.02 (0.80-1.31)
.87
1.03 (0.80-1.31)
.83
1.01 (0.79-1.30)
.94
Neurological or psychiatric referral (REF: other referral reasonsf)
1.01 (0.89-1.15)
.85
1.02 (0.89-1.16)
.82
1.01 (0.88-1.15)
.94
VA-Telehealth model (REF: VA-traditional model)
0.87 (0.75-1.01)
.06
0.87 (0.75-1.00)
.06
0.98 (0.81-1.19)
.87
Age ≥50 (REF: VA-TH × age <50 or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00 (0.85-1.19)
.96
Female (REF: VA-TH × male or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.91 (0.73-1.13)
.40
Black (REF: VA-TH × White race or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.74 (0.62-0.89)
.001
Hispanic (REF: VA-TH × White race or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.04 (0.59-1.83)
.89
Other racesd (REF: VA-TH × White race or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.96 (0.76-1.21)
.71
0.45 (0.35-0.57)
<.001
0.45 (0.34-0.57)
<.001
0.43 (0.28-0.65)
<.001
Age ≥50 (REF: Non-VA × age <50 or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.89 (0.68-1.17)
.41
Female (REF: Non-VA × male or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.25 (0.89-1.74)
.20
Black race (REF: Non-VA × White race or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.04 (0.80-1.34)
.80
Hispanic ethnicity (REF: Non-VA × White race or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.72 (0.57-0.91)
.005
Other racesd (REF: Non-VA × White race or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.68 (0.49-0.94)
.02
VA-TH ×
Non-VA care (REF: VA-traditional model)
Non-VA ×
Abbreviations: CTD, connective tissue disorder; NA, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; REF,
referent group; TH, telehealth; VA, Department of Veterans Affairs.
a
Model 1, main effects only.
b
Model 2, main effects with age and race or ethnicity × gender interactions.
c
Model 3, main effects with care model × age, race or ethnicity, and gender interactions.
d
American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,
and unknown.
e
Patients affected with cancer and unaffected with family history of cancer.
f
Allergy-immunology, congenital disorder (including chromosomal disorders),
endocrine or metabolic, hematology, nephrology or urology, personal utility (eg,
ancestry, paternity), pharmacogenetics or exposures, pulmonary, reproductive
concerns, rheumatology or autoimmune disorders, and not specified (eg, genetic
counseling, genetic screening, positive genetic finding).
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
7/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
Table 5. Patient and Consultation Characteristics Associated With Cancer Surveillance and Risk-Reducing Procedures Within 2 Years of Genetics Referral
Model 1a
Model 2b
Model 3c
Model 4d
Variables
OR (95% CI)
P value
OR (95% CI)
P value
OR (95% CI)
P value
OR (95% CI)
P value
Age >50 (REF: age <50)
2.00 (1.85-2.15)
<.001
2.28 (2.07-2.52)
<.001
2.18 (1.86-2.56)
<.001
2.00 (1.85-2.15)
<.001
Women (REF: men)
2.00 (1.72-2.32)
<.001
2.26 (1.94-2.65)
<.001
2.25 (1.75-2.88)
<.001
2.00 (1.72-2.32)
<.001
NA
NA
0.81 (0.71-0.91)
.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
Age ≥50 × female (REF: age <50 × female or
male)
Black race (REF: White race)
Black race × women (REF: Black men or White
race)
Hispanic ethnicity (REF: White race)
Hispanic ethnicity × female (REF: Hispanic male
or White race)
Other races or ethnicitiese (REF: White race)
Other racese × female (REF: other racese × male
or White race)
1.26 (1.11-1.44)
.001
1.17 (1.04-1.32)
.010
1.13 (0.95-1.35)
.17
1.26 (1.10-1.43)
.001
NA
NA
1.12 (0.92-1.36)
.27
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.24 (1.06-1.45)
.008
1.44 (1.22-1.70)
<.001
1.10 (0.96-1.27)
.16
1.24 (1.05-1.46)
.01
NA
NA
0.75 (0.61-0.92)
.005
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.86 (0.76-0.96)
.009
0.78 (0.66-0.92)
.004
0.80 (0.67-0.96)
.02
0.86 (0.76-0.96)
.008
NA
NA
1.18 (0.97-1.44)
.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
Married (REF: not married)
0.95 (0.90-1.00)
.06
0.94 (0.89-1.00)
.04
0.95 (0.90-1.00)
.06
0.95 (0.90-1.00)
.07
Service-connected disability (REF: none)
1.07 (1.01-1.14)
.03
1.07 (1.01-1.14)
.02
1.07 (1.01-1.14)
.02
1.07 (1.01-1.13)
.03
Health insurance (REF: no health insurance)
0.99 (0.94-1.05)
.82
0.99 (0.93-1.05)
.68
0.99 (0.94-1.05)
.79
1.00 (0.94-1.06)
.90
Cancer referralf (REF: other referral reasonsg)
1.70 (1.54-1.89)
<.001
1.69 (1.52-1.87)
<.001
1.69 (1.53-1.88)
<.001
1.71 (1.54-1.89)
<.001
Gastrointestinal or polyposis referral (REF: Other
referral reasonsg)
2.89 (2.29-3.65)
<.001
2.83 (2.24-3.57)
<.001
2.88 (2.28-3.64)
<.001
2.90 (2.30-3.66)
<.001
Neurological or psychiatric referral (REF: other
referral reasonsg)
0.76 (0.66-0.88)
<.001
0.75 (0.65-0.87)
<.001
0.76 (0.66-0.87)
<.001
0.76 (0.66-0.87)
<.001
Cardiovascular or CTD referral (REF: Other referral
reasonsg)
0.92 (0.77-1.10)
.38
0.93 (0.78-1.11)
.42
0.93 (0.78-1.11)
.41
0.92 (0.77-1.10)
.35
Consultation completed (REF: not completed)
1.55 (1.40-1.72)
<.001
1.55 (1.40-1.72)
<.001
1.55 (1.40-1.72)
<.001
2.14 (1.81-2.53)
<.001
VA-TH × completed (REF: completed ×
VA-traditional or not)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.66 (0.56-0.78)
<.001
Non-VA × completed (REF: completed ×
VA-traditional or not)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.64 (0.52-0.78)
<.001
0.86 (0.72-1.03)
.10
0.86 (0.72-1.02)
.09
0.95 (0.80-1.13)
.58
1.19 (0.99-1.42)
.06
Age ≥50 (REF: VA-TH and <50 or
VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.86 (0.72-1.04)
.12
NA
NA
Women (REF: VA-TH and men or
VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.85 (0.64-1.14)
.64
NA
NA
Black race (REF: VA-TH and White race or
VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.18 (0.93-1.49)
.17
NA
NA
Hispanic (REF: VA-TH and White race or
VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.25 (0.96-1.61)
.10
NA
NA
Other racese (REF: VA-TH and White race or
VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.10 (0.87-1.38)
.43
NA
NA
0.89 (0.73-1.08)
.23
0.89 (0.73-1.08)
.23
0.95 (0.75-1.21)
.68
1.23 (1.02-1.49)
.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.97 (0.78-1.22)
.81
NA
NA
VA-Telehealth model (REF: VA-traditional model)
VA-TH ×
Non-VA care (REF: VA-traditional model)
Non-VA ×
Age ≥50 (REF: non-VA × age <50 or
VA-traditional)
Female (REF: non-VA × male or VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.85 (0.57-1.26)
.41
NA
NA
Black (REF: non-VA × White race or
VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.10 (0.85-1.42)
.48
NA
NA
Hispanic (REF: non-VA × White race or
VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.95 (0.70-1.29)
.74
NA
NA
Other racese (REF: non-VA × White race or
VA-traditional)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.14 (0.83-1.58)
.42
NA
NA
Abbreviations: CTD, connective tissue disorder; NA, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; REF,
referent group; TH, telehealth; VA, Department of Veterans Affairs.
e
American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,
and unknown.
a
Model 1, main effects only.
f
Patients affected with cancer and unaffected with family history of cancer.
b
Model 2, main effects with age and race or ethnicity × gender interactions.
g
c
Model 3, main effects with genetic care model × age, race or ethnicity and gender
interactions.
d
Model 4, main effects with genetic care model × consultation status interactions; CVD,
cardiovascular disease. Each model is comparing 0 vs 2 or more cancer surveillance
and risk-reducing procedures.
Allergy immunology, congenital disorder (including chromosomal disorders),
endocrine or metabolic, hematology, nephrology or urology, personal use (eg, ancestry,
paternity), pharmacogenetics or exposures, pulmonary, reproductive concerns,
rheumatology or autoimmune disorders, and not specified (eg, genetic counseling,
genetic screening, positive genetic finding).
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
8/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
surveillance and risk-reducing procedures with greater patient adherence.19,20 Having multiple
cancer surveillance and risk-reducing procedures was more likely if completing the genetic
consultation with the VA-traditional model than VA-telehealth, which performed similarly to non-VA
care. This suggests better care coordination or a greater influence of the VA-traditional model on
patient uptake of these procedures. With most VA-telehealth model encounters conducted solely by
genetic counselors, this could have constrained the recommendations that could be made for these
procedures and the ability to directly order them, given the genetic counselors’ scope of practice.21,22
The VA-telehealth model was associated with exacerbated health care disparities based on race
or ethnicity and gender compared with the VA-traditional model. In the VA, telehealth use is known
to be lower in Asian patients, Black patients, and Hispanic patients compared with White patients.9
We observed this happening at the consultation referral stage for patients of Asian, American Indian
or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander ancestry, and at the consultation
completion stage for Black patients. Biases of referring physicians regarding perceived preferences
for patients of Alaskan Native or American Indian, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
ancestry for VA-traditional genetic services may explain disparities at the referral stage. Alternatively,
these patients may have declined referral to VA-telehealth when given options. Once referred for
genetic consultation, Black patients were less likely to complete their consultation if referred to the
VA-telehealth model. Studies have characterized the communication between Black patients and
their health care professionals as emotionally less open,23 and Black patients rate their visits with
their health care professionals as less participatory than White patients.24 Additionally, Black patients
have greater mistrust of the medical community and more concern of potential misuse of genetic
information because of historical experiences like the Tuskegee experiment and the racially
motivated eugenics movement.25,26 Thus, Black patients may have perceived the VA-telehealth
model as a barrier that further complicates patient-clinician communication. Effective
communication by the referring clinician explaining the relevance of the genetic consultation to
patient care may help alleviate patients’ concerns and ensure follow-through on the referral.
Black patients and Hispanic patients were more likely to have multiple cancer surveillance and
risk-reducing procedures in the VA within 2 years of their genetic consultation referral than White
patients. This may be due to more options for these procedures outside of the VA for White patients
or preference to obtain these procedures within VA among Black patients and Hispanic patients. This
observation contradicts literature describing disparities in health care utilization among racial and
ethnic minorities in the VA and in the community.27 VA research has shown these disparities are most
prevalent for care processes likely affected by the quantity and quality of patient-clinician
communication, shared decision-making, and patient participation.27 Our results suggest VA
genetics clinicians may be more adept at preparing patients for uptake of cancer preventive
procedures, especially under the VA-traditional model.
Genetic services are highly relevant to women, with a substantial over-representation of
women referred compared with men. Women were referred to the VA-telehealth model and non-VA
care more than the VA-traditional model programs based at large VA medical centers. This is
consistent with research from Northern California Kaiser-Permanente that has found women are
more likely than men to choose a telemedicine visit.28 The greater likelihood of genetics referral to
the VA-telehealth model or non-VA care may be partly because of a preference to avoid VA medical
centers where the traditional models are based because of harassment experienced at certain VA
facilities.29
Women were twice as likely to have multiple cancer surveillance and risk-reducing procedures
in the VA 2 years following the genetics referral compared to men. This may be due in part to
including procedures that are more relevant for women in our analysis (eg, mammogram, bilateral
mastectomy). Additionally, men consistently underuse preventive health care services compared
with women.30,31 Notably, while the VA-telehealth model appears to be preferred by women for
genetic consultation, patients completing consultations with the VA-telehealth model were less likely
to have multiple cancer surveillance and risk-reducing procedures in the VA. This may be due to
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
9/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
geographic barriers that promote use of telehealth yet present barriers to obtaining these
procedures in person at the VA, certain cancer-preventive procedures (eg, mammography) may not
be available in the VA, or women may prefer obtaining these procedures in the community,32 which
may be due in part to fear of harassment while seeking care at VA.29
Age was not associated with referral to the genetic care models or with completing
consultations when the moderating effects of gender or care model were considered. Older patients
were more likely to have multiple cancer-preventive procedures following a genetics referral, except
older women were less likely. Older patients generally use more health care services than younger
patients.33 Older patients are expected to have more cancer-preventive procedures because age 50
is a typical age for beginning cancer screening for average-risk patients in the VA.34-36 However, for
high-risk patients, cancer surveillance and risk-reducing surgeries are typically recommended before
age 50, and this may explain our findings of younger women having greater odds of multiple
procedures.18,37
The disparities observed in completing genetic consultations and uptake of cancer surveillance
and risk-reducing procedures based on the type of genetic care model are likely multidimensional
and may be best explained by the centralized structure and uniform approach of the VA-telehealth
model that limits patient-clinician encounters to the telehealth delivery mode performed almost
exclusively by genetic counselors. Centralized services may improve efficiencies of operational and
administrative processes but also can challenge care coordination by constraining the ability to tailor
services to local needs, stifling initiative and innovation, and complicating communication processes
between the staff, patients, and referring clinicians.38,39 Further, vulnerable subpopulations are less
able to benefit from a centralized approach because of inconsistencies between the social and
cultural assumptions of those implementing the approach and the targeted groups.40
Health care disparities associated with telehealth technology are attributed to the digital divide
or lack of access to telehealth devices, software, and broadband internet.41 However, the digital
divide cannot explain the disparities we observed in completing genetic consultations, since videoto-clinic encounters were used rather than video-to-home during the study period. Our findings
suggest that shrinkage of the digital divide by improving access to telehealth equipment and the
internet will not suffice to ensure health care equity. Health care organizations seeking to improve
access to specialty care using a centralized telehealth service should notice the VA’s experience and
develop implementation plans that include a health equity framework to assess disparities and
identify mitigating strategies.14,42
Limitations
The large data set permitted the assessment of multiple variables to identify significant associations
and moderating effects on the outcomes of interest. However, the observational study design limits
the findings to associations, and there may be confounding from unmeasured variables. To address
this in part, we have adjusted for clustering of patients by referring facility. An important outcome
was the use of cancer surveillance and risk-reducing procedures. However, we only assessed these
procedures performed in the VA and not in the community. Thus, we may have underestimated use
across the population studied and possibly within the different genetic care models. Another
limitation is that the findings may not be generalizable. However, the VA is not unique in establishing
a centralized telehealth model for delivering genetic services nationwide; multiple commercial
entities and academic institutions offer similar services.
Conclusions
In this cross-sectional study, we found that a centralized telehealth model was associated with access
to genetic services but also with hindered care coordination for follow-up services and exacerbation
of health care disparities. While there may be efficiencies of scale related to the centralized telehealth
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
10/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
model, this must be balanced against other quality outcomes, such as effectiveness, patientcenteredness, and equity. As the need for genetic services continues to grow, the VA and other
stakeholders relying on centralized telehealth services for specialty care must assess structural
barriers and the needs and preferences of vulnerable subpopulations. Strategies addressing these
barriers, needs, and preferences may complement the centralized approach, improve care
coordination, and help mitigate health care disparities.
ARTICLE INFORMATION
Accepted for Publication: February 20, 2022.
Published: April 11, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687
Correction: This article was corrected on May 5, 2022, to fix language in the Conclusions.
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Scheuner
MT et al. JAMA Network Open.
Corresponding Author: Maren T. Scheuner, MD, MPH, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System,
4150 Clement St, San Francisco, CA 94121 (maren.scheuner@va.gov).
Author Affiliations: San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California (Scheuner,
Coeshott); University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco (Scheuner); Center for the
Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, and Policy, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care
System, Los Angeles, California (Huynh, Gable, Lee, Simon, Hamilton, Russell); Veterans Affairs Informatics and
Computing Infrastructure, Salt Lake City, Utah (Chanfreau-Coffinier, Patterson, DuVall); Veterans Affairs Boston
Health Care System, Boston, Massachusetts (Lerner); University of California Los Angeles Fielding School of Public
Health, Los Angeles (Lee); David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles
(Hamilton, Russell); Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (Patterson, DuVall).
Author Contributions: Drs Chanfreau-Coffnier and Huynh had full access to all of the data in the study and take
responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Scheuner, Lee, Hamilton, Russell.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Scheuner, Huynh, Lerner.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: Huynh, Chanfreau, Lee.
Obtained funding: Scheuner, DuVall, Russell.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Scheuner, Lerner, Gable, Simon, Coeshott, Hamilton, DuVall.
Supervision: Scheuner, DuVall.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Patterson reported receiving grants from National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute and the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development outside the submitted work. Dr.
Scheuner reported receiving grant funding from the National Cancer Institute, the National Human Genome
Research Institute, the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development, and the Veterans Affairs
Quality Enhancement Research Initiative outside the submitted work. Dr DuVall reported receiving grants from
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Astellas Pharma, Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Biodesix, Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Gilead Sciences Inc.,
GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Innocrin Pharmaceuticals, IQVIA, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kantar Health, MDxHealth,
Merck and Co, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Novartis International AG, and Parexel International Corporation
outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding/Support: This work was supported by funding by grant 1 I01 HX002278-01 from the Veterans Affairs
Health Services Research and Development and used resources and facilities at the Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City
Health Care System with funding from grant HSR HIR 13-457 from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing
Infrastructure.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection,
management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and
decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the co-authors and do not represent the opinions of the VA.
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
11/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
REFERENCES
1. Information on genetic counselor and medical geneticist workforces. Published July 31, 2020. Accessed April 25,
2021. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-593
2. Jenkins BD, Fischer CG, Polito CA, et al. The 2019 US medical genetics workforce: a focus on clinical genetics.
Genet Med. 2021;23(8):1458-1464. doi:10.1038/s41436-021-01162-5
3. Raspa M, Moultrie R, Toth D, Hague SN. Barriers and facilitators to genetic service delivery models: scoping
review. Interact J Med Res. 2021;10(1):e23523. doi:10.2196/23523
4. Maiese DR, Keehn A, Lyon M, Flannery D, Watson M; Working Groups of the National Coordinating Center for
Seven Regional Genetics Service Collaboratives. Current conditions in medical genetics practice. Genet Med. 2019;
21(8):1874-1877. doi:10.1038/s41436-018-0417-6
5. Demeke HB, Merali S, Marks S, et al. Trends in use of telehealth among health centers during the COVID-19
Pandemic—United States, June 26–November 6, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:240-244. doi:10.
15585/mmwr.mm7007a3
6. Koonin LM, Hoots B, Tsang CA, et al. Trends in the use of telehealth during the emergence of the COVID-19
pandemic—United States, January-March 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(43):1595-1599. doi:10.
15585/mmwr.mm6943a3
7. Totten AM, McDonagh MS, Wagner JH. The evidence base for telehealth: reassurance in the face of rapid
expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. May 2020. doi:10.23970/
AHRQEPCCOVIDTELEHEALTH
8. Veterans Health Administration. About VHA. Accessed December 12, 2021. https://www.va.gov/health/
aboutvha.asp
9. Korshak L, Washington DL. Telehealth disparities fact sheet. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Accessed
December 11, 2021. https://www.va.gov/HEALTHEQUITY/docs/Telehealth_Fact_Sheet.pdf
10. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Virtual Medical Center. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://eauth.va.
gov/accessva/about/vmc
11. Scheuner MT, Myrie K, Peredo J, et al. Integrating germline genetics into precision oncology practice in the
Veterans Health Administration: challenges and opportunities. Fed Pract. 2020;37(suppl 4):S82-S88. doi:10.
12788/fp.0033
12. Scheuner MT, Marshall N, Lanto A, et al. Delivery of clinical genetic consultative services in the Veterans Health
Administration. Genet Med. 2014;16(8):609-619. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.202
13. Coordination Measures Atlas Update. Care coordination measurement framework. Accessed February 12,
2022. https://www.ahrq.gov/ncepcr/care/coordination/atlas/chapter3.html
14. Woodward EN, Matthieu MM, Uchendu US, Rogal S, Kirchner JE. The health equity implementation
framework: proposal and preliminary study of hepatitis C virus treatment. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):26. doi:10.
1186/s13012-019-0861-y
15. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Corporate Data Warehouse. Accessed December 12, 2021. https://www.data.
va.gov/dataset/Corporate-Data-Warehouse-CDW-/ftpi-epf7
16. Williams RL. A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):
645-646. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00645.x
17. Rogers WH. Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Tech Bull. 1993;3(13):19-23.
18. Greenstone CL, Peppiatt J, Cunningham K, et al. Standardizing care coordination within the Department of
Veterans Affairs. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(1)(suppl):4-6. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-04997-6
19. Hadley DW, Jenkins JF, Dimond E, de Carvalho M, Kirsch I, Palmer CGS. Colon cancer screening practices after
genetic counseling and testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(1):39-44. doi:
10.1200/JCO.2004.06.128
20. Morgan D, Sylvester H, Lucas FL, Miesfeldt S. Cancer prevention and screening practices among women at risk
for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer after genetic counseling in the community setting. Fam Cancer. 2009;8
(4):277-287. doi:10.1007/s10689-009-9242-z
21. ACMG Board of Directors. Scope of practice: a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and
Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2015;17(9):e3. doi:10.1038/gim.2015.94
22. Resta R, Biesecker BB, Bennett RL, et al; National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Definition Task Force. A new
definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report. J Genet Couns. 2006;
15(2):77-83. doi:10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
12/13
JAMA Network Open | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Demographic Differences Among VA Patients Referred for Genetic Consultation
23. Park J, Beach MC, Han D, Moore RD, Korthuis PT, Saha S. Racial disparities in clinician responses to patient
emotions. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(9):1736-1744. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.019
24. Cooper-Patrick L, Gallo JJ, Gonzales JJ, et al. Race, gender, and partnership in the patient-physician
relationship. JAMA. 1999;282(6):583-589. doi:10.1001/jama.282.6.583
25. Peters N, Rose A, Armstrong K. The association between race and attitudes about predictive genetic testing.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(3):361-365.
26. Suther S, Kiros G-E. Barriers to the use of genetic testing: a study of racial and ethnic disparities. Genet Med.
2009;11(9):655-662. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181ab22aa
27. Saha S, Freeman M, Toure J, Tippens KM, Weeks C, Ibrahim S. Racial and ethnic disparities in the VA health care
system: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):654-671. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0521-4
28. Reed ME, Huang J, Graetz I, et al. Patient characteristics associated with choosing a telemedicine visit vs office
visit with the same primary care clinicians. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e205873. doi:10.1001/
jamanetworkopen.2020.5873
29. Klap R, Darling JE, Hamilton AB, et al. Prevalence of stranger harassment of women Veterans at Veterans
Affairs Medical Centers and impacts on delayed and missed care. Womens Health Issues. 2019;29(2):107-115. doi:
10.1016/j.whi.2018.12.002
30. Bertakis KD, Azari R, Helms LJ, Callahan EJ, Robbins JA. Gender differences in the utilization of health care
services. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(2):147-152.
31. Davis JL, Buchanan KL, Katz RV, Green BL. Gender differences in cancer screening beliefs, behaviors, and
willingness to participate: implications for health promotion. Am J Mens Health. 2012;6(3):211-217. doi:10.1177/
1557988311425853
32. Hynes DM, Edwards S, Hickok A, et al. Veterans’ use of Veterans Health Administration primary care in an era
of expanding choice. Med Care. 2021;59(suppl 3):S292-S300. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001554
33. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Future Health Care Workforce for Older Americans. Retooling for
an aging America: building the health care workforce. National Academies Press; 2008. Accessed March 11, 2022.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215400/
34. Qaseem A, Crandall CJ, Mustafa RA, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.
Screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults: a guidance statement from the American
College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(9):643-654. doi:10.7326/M19-0642
35. Qaseem A, Lin JS, Mustafa RA, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.
Screening for breast cancer in average-risk women: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians.
Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(8):547-560. doi:10.7326/M18-2147
36. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. A and B recommendations. Accessed August 8, 2021. https://www.
uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation-topics/uspstf-and-b-recommendations
37. Kurian AW, Hare EE, Mills MA, et al. Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary
cancer risk assessment. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(19):2001-2009. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.53.6607
38. Bianca A. The disadvantages to centralized control in a business. CHRON. Accessed August 24, 2021. https://
smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-centralized-control-business-20670.html
39. Campbell A, Kunisch S, Müller-Stewens G. To centralize or not to centralize? McKinsey Quarterly; 2011.
Accessed August 24, 2021. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/to-centralizeor-not-to-centralize
40. Frohlich KL, Potvin L. Transcending the known in public health practice: the inequality paradox: the
population approach and vulnerable populations. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(2):216-221. doi:10.2105/AJPH.
2007.114777
41. Saeed SA, Masters RM. Disparities in health care and the digital divide. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2021;23(9):61. doi:10.
1007/s11920-021-01274-4
42. Peterson A, Charles V, Yeung D, Coyle K. The health equity framework: a science- and justice-based model for
public health researchers and practitioners. Health Promot Pract. 2021;22(6):741-746. doi:10.1177/
1524839920950730
SUPPLEMENT.
eAppendix. Consult Reason Classification
eTable 1. Confusion Matrix Comparing Predicted Class From NLP System to Annotator Opinion
eTable 2. Scores
eReferences
JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(4):e226687. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6687 (Reprinted)
Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by guest on 07/07/2024
April 11, 2022
13/13