Telemedicine to augment the patient encounter

When I use the term “telemedicine,” what does it mean to you?

In current parlance, it usually refers to radiologists looking at digital images of x-rays and other scans from locations remote from the site of acquisition. Think “outsourcing” where the radiologist could even be as far away as India.

But according to a recent conference I attended, telemedicine could mean so much more. It can range from synchronous video chat between a patient and a doctor, to conferencing between doctors, to allied health professionals (nutritionists, physical therapists) giving live (or canned) presentations to groups of patients–who are geographically far apart.

The technology is already here. The biggest obstacles to widespread adoption of telemedicine is, you guessed it, payment. Or what health care people call reimbursement.

Our current system rewards in-person visits in a fee-for-service model. Each episode of care is monetized. The more episodes, the more charges. Health care reform will supposedly bring about bundled payments, whereby health care teams (not just us doctors) will provide care for patients assigned to us for monthly charges paid to us by insurance companies, as part of an arrangement known by the widgety name “Accountable Care.” In an accountable care model, doctors would be paid for seeing patients in person or not–so suddenly email, video chat, and data transfer sound a whole lot more convenient for both parties in terms of time and convenience.

How can a doctor examine a patient remotely, you say?

No one thinks telemedicine will replace the face-to-face encounter; instead, it will augment it. For certain items, a doctor can get readings from a machine — blood pressures, weights, or glucose levels. Digital photos and video chat work well for skin issues.

In mental health, where resources are often in short supply, telemedicine has taken on an increasing role in doctor-patient virtual visits.

Soon, your smartphone will have a front-loaded camera, which will allow real-time video chat. No more having to use a desktop or laptop to Skype; even basic calling packages will have this functionality built in.

Technology and innovation will drive medicine toward a more patient-centered convenience; there will be more remote diagnostics and consulting, and less face to face time. Patients will respond by taking more charge of their own records, and decide with whom and to what extent to share them from cloud-based, encrypted storage systems.

The day cannot be too far off. After all, we already have a plethora of e-patients.

John Schumann is an internal medicine physician who blogs at GlassHospital.

Submit a guest post and be heard on social media’s leading physician voice.

email

  • Anonymous

    It will be more cost effective for midlevels and technician to exam the patient and “outsource” physician oversight to areas where the cost of living is lower.  As physicians rely more on technology and less on the physical exam, this is a market based solution for the high cost of healthcare.

    • John Schumann

      interesting notion.

    • Anonymous

      A “mid-level” is a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant–two very different professionals.  For reasons that are hidden by the conflating term “mid-level”, nurse practitioners and physicians assistants cost more than e-patient or many physicians want to think.  PA’s must always be supervised by a physician on site which is a built in expense in MD time and liability.  In at least 21 state’s NP’s have independent practice in primary care and multiple specialties or need in 28 states only a non-supervisory collaborative agreement with an MD to prescribe so they are not subject to having their work supervised.   As for being so inexpensive, the new generation of NP’s, while not receiving Medicare funds for paid residencies like physicians, are still paying the astronomic tuition fees for undergraduate and Master’s degrees due to the lack of public universities to attend.  With private compounding loans they can not afford to go to “areas where the cost of living is lower” because the pay is lower due to insurance payer mix. The only way to attract any providers to these positions would be with loan reimbursement in addition to a competitive salary.  And then surely this would not appear to be a “market based” solution to the current minority of folks in Congress who do not understand that, for a myriad of reasons, health care is not a market based system, e.g. health insurance companies have exemption from Sherman Act &c.    So the idea that NP’s are going to be a cheap solution to fix “The Market’s” problem should be re-examined.   People can choose to be physicians or NP’s depending on which approach to patient care they believe is best for patients.  They certainly don’t to live in rural America because their profession is subservient to the physician watching behind the camera.  

      • Anonymous

        Laws can be changed….Supervising physicians could work offsite…

        A PA working in NY supervised by a physician in India would be cheaper than a physician in NY.

        A medical assistant can collect information cheaper than a nurse.  This information can be sent to a physician in Mexico and a diagnosis made.  If an examination is necessary, I am sure we can educated a technician to do the needed examination with a great deal of accuracy.

        Even better than a supervising physician, just plug all data collected into a database and have a computer program come up with the differential diagnosis.  Perhaps that doctor in Thailand can provide oversight when necessary.

        If dialdoctors can treat me over the phone…

        As for NP’s, programs at public universities can be developed.  Maybe the future will have a dialNP at $19.95 per month instead of $29.95.

        • Anonymous

          Thank goodness the market does not control medical and nursing practice and that medical and nursing and public health associations and teaching universities determine best practice for the most part. Move to Thailand, you can explain your symptoms and get meds from a non-pharmacist with a cart for $1.50. Now that is the market at work!

  • Anonymous

    We provide telemedicine and it certainly helps patients. Our doctors consult on patients who are two or three states over while still providing the same care. Funniest call was a patient who called from the bathroom at work to get a refill on a medication. He had it within the hour after picking it up in his pharmacy.

    Patients with all conditions can benefit from telemedicine because it not only reduces transportation/time expenses but it can save cash right at the bat. While hospitals are struggling to get payment for each consult, private companies like ours are charging a single monthly fee for unlimited consults per family. It sure beats waiting until insurance companies and doctors can reach an equitable agreement.

    • John Schumann

      another innovative business model–and it sounds like patient satisfaction is high.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Craig-Koniver/100001463176810 Craig Koniver

    It only makes sense in this day and age to offer these types of services to patients. Patients don’t want to have to spend time driving in traffic and waiting in your waiting room. All the better for them to be at home or work and have a video appointment. I think this certainly makes sense given our societal and cultural tendencies. What does not make sense, though, is waiting for insurance to pay for these services. As physicians we tend to de-value our time and advice…”since I am already at the office, of course, I can talk to Mr. Jones for free via video conference”….since we de-value our own time and feel that since we are at work we “should” provide care, we get taken advantage of. I think a better approach is to embrace the technology and then, like every other sector of our economy, charge for our time and advice. Waiting and relying on health insurance to reimburse us will never happen. But showing patients that you want to connect with them on their terms is a service they will value and want to pay for. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/gpark1018 Gregory Park

    A good use of this technology is to augment the face-to-face physician encounter.  So you are a GP in a remote location with very little access to a particular specialist.  With a tele-medicine model you can connect with a heart specialist in the big city via video and audio links during your examination of the patient.  Your remote specialist will see and hear everything the GP does.  The specialist could even offer some advice to the GP real-time during the tele-consult. 

    As I remarked in an earlier post, this same technology could be used for coding purposes.  Instead of connecting to a specialist, the GP could be connected to a scribe who listens/views to the encounter real-time to inevitably code the encounter and enter data into the patient’s EHR.  This would allow the physician to pay more attention to the patient and less to documenting the encounter.

    What is wrong with this idea?

    • http://www.facebook.com/gpark1018 Gregory Park

      Oh right…no one will pay for it.

  • http://twitter.com/karajdietrich Kara Dietrich

    I’m curious to what extent this community has explored options like Amazon’s “1-Click” for telemedicine payments. I’m digging further into the concept of #videovisits. Follow me on Twitter @karajdietrich

Trending