reason, our knowledge and understanding of what video games can and cannot do to affect health can only move forward if we make these investigations a priority, disseminate the findings, and build on them. In the future, more research studies that clearly outline a causal link between playing video games for health, health care, and outcomes should be conducted. This can be done if researchers conduct randomized controlled trials on these games. Furthermore, efforts should be made to include sample sizes with sufficient power to detect differences between the treatment and control groups. This is often difficult when actual populations of potential participants are small as with certain disease groups or in certain specialties in medicine. It is also difficult because making video games can be an expensive endeavor. For many, the cost of a randomized trial following game production can be a challenging SPECIAL ISSUE: VIDEO GAMES IN HEALTH CARE 119 goal. Finally, studies should focus on outcomes that are objective and have clinical relevance. Self-reports of likeability should be paired with objective data, such as amount of time spent playing the game. Also, measures of surgical skill should be demonstrated not only on simulations, but also with real patients where possible. In conclusion, conversations and debates about the value of video games should include evidence about video games and health. In addition, the field of medical education and training can look to the impressive innovation and activity shown with video games and patient health for inspiration in designing their own educational interventions. The time has come for treatment plans to explore the use of video games as adjuncts to therapy to help patients take full advantage of advances in treatments. Medical curricula designers also should consider including video games as teaching tools so that our wealth of health care resources can be delivered safely and effectively. References Annetta, L. (One in Three Adults Used Telehealth during the First Six Months of the Pandemic, but Unmet Needs for Care Persisted Telehealth, health care provided via telephone or video, is increasingly viewed as a low-cost strategy to expand access to health care. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth use was modest but growing and varied significantly by a patient’s health insurance coverage type and rurality (MedPAC 2018; Yu et al. 2018). The rate of telehealth use soared when the pandemic began and peaked at about 14 percent of outpatient visits in midApril (Mehrotra et al. 2020; Patel et al. 2020; Ziedan, Simon, and Wing 2020). Though telehealth rates have since declined, they remain significantly higher than average, even as in-person visits have resumed; recent estimates show telehealth now constitutes 6 percent of outpatient visits, compared with less than 1 percent before the pandemic (Mehrotra et al. 2020). During the pandemic, Medicare and other payers have made changes to payment and regulatory policies that incentivize both patients and providers to use telehealth, thereby increasing its use. Many insurers waived out-of-pocket costs for telehealth visits, and Medicare mandated payment for audio-only telephone visits and expanded telehealth visits to nonrural residents (Lee, Karsten, and Roberts 2020; Mehrotra, Wang, and Snyder 2020). Additionally, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services permitted telehealth services to originate from a patient’s home rather than a medical facility.1 Though telehealth use has increased dramatically during the pandemic, continued reliance on it could exacerbate health care inequities (Mehrotra, Wang, and Snyder 2020). The resources and technology required for telehealth may be less accessible for people with low incomes or living in rural areas. For example, community health centers face disproportionate barriers to telehealth implementation because they often lack reimbursement, equipment, and training.2 In this brief, we provide nationally representative estimates of telehealth use among nonelderly adults six months into the pandemic, as of September 2020. We include both phone and video visits in our definition of telehealth. We use data from the second wave of the Urban Institute’s Coronavirus Tracking Survey, fielded September 11 through 28, 2020. The survey contained questions about telehealth use, satisfaction with telehealth use, wanting telehealth but not getting it, not seeing a provider because telehealth was the only option, and reasons for not using telehealth. We analyze survey responses overall and by health and demographic characteristics. We find the following: › One-third of adults reported having had a telehealth visit to discuss their own health care since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus began in March, and this varied substantially by patient characteristics. Adults in fair or poor health and adults with multiple chronic conditions were significantly more likely to use telehealth than their respective counterparts. In addition, Black adults and Hispanic/Latinx adults were more likely to use telehealth than white adults,* which is consistent with a survey of nonelderly adults in California (Joynt, Catterson, and Rabinowitz 2020). In addition, adults living outside metropolitan areas were less likely to have used telehealth than adults living in metropolitan areas. * We