Today (7/13/2023) I read an article in Beckers regarding some research that telehealth only reduces cost for certain types of diseases.
Specifically, the researchers noted that telehealth did not reduce costs or the probability of future office visits for patients with circulatory, respiratory, or infectious diseases. They found telehealth to be effective at reducing costs for behavioral health conditions, metabolic disorders, dermatologic disorders, and musculoskeletal disorders, though they did not quantify those benefits individually. When I finally got to the actual abstract, there were some numbers that were interesting:
· On average, telehealth visits reduce the number of future visits within the next 30 days by 13.6% (0.15 visits) producing a per-telehealth-visit cost reduction of $239.
· Those visits cited as having a significant effect (reduction of 0.21 visits) produced only a $179 cost reduction which appears to be below the average performance at least where cost is concerned. These are care types assessed by the researchers to have “high virtualization potential”.
It would be interesting to think about what kinds of technologies and services might raise the virtualization potential for patients with circulatory, respiratory, and infectious diseases. What are caregivers unable to discern in a telehealth visit regarding these disorders that quickly leads to the need for an office visit? What is it about those disorders that requires the “laying on of hands”? Are some of the applications being developed for smart phones a way to better “see” these conditions remotely?
Or is there something about these diseases that makes patients seek out in-person visits with a caregiver?
What do you think?
As always, the thoughts and opinions in this blog are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the thoughts and opinions of my employer or of ASHP.
Dennis A. Tribble, PharmD, FASHP
Ormond Beach, FL
datdoc@aol.com