|"Stand up, bend over and let|
me see that itchy rash!"
It worked pretty well. What's more, the literature suggests that this is not all that new, there are studies that suggest high levels of patient satisfaction and a surprising willingness to pay for the service out of pocket. Time will tell on whether this leads to comparable clinical outcomes at an acceptable cost.
But what has struck the DMCB most of all was a business model "dichotomy." Talk to most policymakers about virtual office visits and you'll discover that it is being hailed as another advance in increasing consumer-patient access to cost-effective care. In other words, persons living in Faraway Montana will be able to discuss their rash with the expert Dr. Windowchat anywhere in the world. The DMCB thinks of this as the "enlightened" side of "telemedicine."
While that may have merit, when the DMCB googles "virtual office visits," it finds a decidedly contrary business model: busy and computer-savvy suburbanites with the kind of disposable income who can pay out-of-pocket for the convenience of not having to sit in a waiting room. From a health insurance perspective, this is quite compelling, since it substitutes a lower level of service for a population that is prone to overutilization. The DMCB knows the doctors like it better when the insurers aren't involved in a high cash-flow 'yes-I'll-take-VISA' transactional business. This is the "real" side of telemedicine.
The DMCB suspects this is one of those innovations that offers something for everyone: increased access for those with not enough of it and "disruptive" technology for a health care industry still locked into expensive and labor intensive one-on-one doctor-patient visits. From all points of view, this form of telemedicine's future is very bright.