mortality nearly doubled in the United States and rural residents experienced decreasing access to obstetric care. To improve maternal health, many states have established maternal mortality and morbidity review committees (MMRCs). We assessed the extent of rural representation in state policy efforts related to MMRCs. Methods: We reviewed publicly available information on MMRCs (websites, statutes, bills, media) in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, separately identifying highly rural states (with >30% of the population being rural residents). We assessed whether each state 1) had established an MMRC, 2) had passed legislation requiring an MMRC, 3) had considered, but not passed, legislation requiring an MMRC, 4) mentioned rural populations in MMRC legislation, 5) required representation on the MMRC from any particular groups, and 6) required rural representation on the MMRC. Results: As of December 2018, MMRCs were established in 45 states and the District of Columbia, an increase from 23 in 2010. Legislation was in place in 27 states, up from 6 in 2010. Only three states specifically mentioned rurality in legislation (including one highly rural state), and only two states required rural representation among their MMRC members (neither of which were highly rural states). Conclusions: Recent growth in MMRCs has had a limited focus on rural residents, despite their worse health outcomes and more limited access to health care, including obstetric services. Lack of rural representation may hamper geographically tailored efforts to reverse rising rates of maternal morbidity and mortality nationally.

Background The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) funded the Evidence-Based Tele-Emergency Network Grant Program (EB TNGP) to serve the dual purpose of providing telehealth services in rural emergency departments (teleED) and systematically collecting data to inform the telehealth evidence base. This provided a unique opportunity to examine trends across multiple teleED networks and examine heterogeneity in processes and outcomes. Method and findings Six health systems received funding from HRSA under the EB TNGP to implement teleED services and they did so to 65 hospitals (91% rural) in 11 states. Three of the grantees provided teleED services to a general patient population while the remaining three grantees provided teleED services to specialized patient populations (i.e., stroke, behavioral health, critically ill children). Over a 26-month period (November 1, 2015 –December 31, 2017), each grantee submitted patient-level data for all their teleED encounters on a uniform set of measures to the data coordinating center. The six grantees reported a total of 4,324 teleED visits and 99.86% were technically successful. The teleED patients were predominantly adult, White, not Latinx, and covered by Medicare or private insurance. Across grantees, 7% of teleED patients needed resuscitation services, 58% were rated as emergent, and 30% were rated as urgent. Across grantees, 44.2% of teleED patients were transferred to another inpatient facility, 26.0% had a routine discharge, and 24.5% were admitted to the local inpatient facility. For the three grantees who served a general patient population, the most frequent presenting complaints for which teleED was activated were chest pain (25.7%), injury or trauma (17.1%), stroke symptoms (9.9%), mental/behavioral health (9.8%), and cardiac arrest (9.5%). The teleED consultation began before the local clinician exam in 37.8% of patients for the grantees who served a general patient population, but in only 1.9% of patients for the grantees who provided specialized services. Conclusions Grantees used teleED services for a representative rural population with urgent or emergent symptoms largely resulting in transfer to a distant hospital or inpatient admission locally. TeleED was often available as the first point of contact before a local provider examination. This finding points to the important role of teleED in improving access for rural ED patients.

No abstract