UK study: Telehealth not cost effective …I have two thoughts on this.
One, telehealth is not only about cost reduction—it is also providing patients access to scarce resources, such as a cardiac specialist. Patients with chronic disease in rural or otherwise under served areas can use telehealth to get services where they otherwise would go without. In this case, telehealth costs equal to, or even a premium above, standard costs may be warranted (or, at least, a comparison to average costs is unfair considering the inflated costs to provide equal services in an area where resources would need to travel to the patient).
Two, costs will come down. And, an 80% reduction in costs (as cited in the article) is not that difficult to achieve if one compares dedicated enterprise solutions to consumer solutions (e.g. smartphone apps). The cost of a widely shared set of web services in the cloud accessed by off-the-shelf, multipurpose consumer devices, like smartphones and tablets, is much lower than deploying and maintaining dedicated vendor-proprietary solutions.
One thought on “UK study: Telehealth not cost effective”
[…] In reading some of the comments from Lynn Britton, president and CEO of Chesterfield, Mo.-based Mercy at the ATA’s (American Telemedicine Association) 18th Annual International Meeting & Trade Show from this article, it reminded me of some comments I made in this post. […]