How Telemedicine Impacts Healthcare Post-COVID

Introduction

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, our systems and institutions were tasked with quickly adapting their services to an increasingly virtual audience. This is particularly true of the medical world, where telemedicine rapidly became the go-to solution for socially-distanced medical needs.

Telemedicine, or telehealth, is the delivery of healthcare services through digital platforms, allowing patients to connect with their healthcare providers remotely. The ability to meet with physicians from the comfort of your home became a necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic, and since then, telemedicine has remained a key aspect of nationwide healthcare. According to Stephanie Watson at Harvard Health, “76 percent of hospitals in the U.S. connect doctors and patients remotely via telehealth, up from 35 percent a decade ago.”

While it promotes accessibility and convenience for patients and physicians alike, the drawbacks of telemedicine include quality concerns and potential technological barriers for certain demographics. This raises the question: Is telemedicine obsolete in a post-COVID world, or do the benefits of remote healthcare outweigh the costs?

Benefits

The primary benefit of telemedicine post-COVID is the increased accessibility to healthcare for populations in rural areas, those without reliable transportation, and immobile or busy patients. Patients without the privileges required to attend regular, in-person medical visits are much better accommodated by a virtual model. This system also increases convenience for the vast majority of patients, whether or not they fall into one of these demographics. 

During virtual visits, clinicians are also less likely to be exposed to infection or disease, further maximizing the care they are able to provide long-term. 

Additionally, telemedicine provides support for patients’ continuity of care, offering easier opportunities for follow-up appointments and check-ins for those with chronic conditions. Further, the implementation of telemedicine can reduce “medication misuse, unnecessary emergency department visits, and prolonged hospitalizations.” 

Drawbacks

Although telemedicine provides increased accessibility to healthcare, this doesn’t mean patients are taking advantage of it. According to a Stanford study, “increased telemedicine access is associated with a modest, 3.5% increase in the utilization of primary care.” While 3.5% translates to a large number of patients, it still represents a smaller population than expected.

One of the largest concerns regarding the wide implementation of telemedicine is the quality of care. The Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Evaluating Clinical Applications of Telemedicine has identified three key quality issues: “overuse of care (e.g., unnecessary telemedicine consultations); underuse of care (e.g., failure to refer a patient for a necessary consultation); and poor technical or interpersonal performance (e.g., incorrect interpretation of pathology specimen or inattention to patient concerns).” 

Further, telehealth creates a digital divide, which causes particular difficulty in regard to older and low-income demographics. According to a Mayo Clinic study, the concordance of diagnoses between in-person and virtual appointments was 86.9%, and “for every 10-year increase in the patients’ age, the odds of receiving a concordant diagnosis by video telemedicine decreased by 9%.”

Physician’s Perspective

Dr. Maryam Kashi, a gastroenterologist with AdventHealth in Central Florida, operates on a hybrid model in providing patient care. Since 2020, she has run 2 days of in-person clinic and 3 days of virtual clinic each week. 

According to her own experience, Dr. Kashi believes that quality of care is held to the same standard in both in-person and virtual visits. She says that her hybrid model allows her to ensure that all patients with issues requiring physical exams or other in-person needs are able to be accommodated. Meanwhile, patients who only need a brief post-op check-in are able to meet with Dr. Kashi virtually at their convenience. 

Dr. Kashi contends that her current hybrid model, which includes a majority of virtual visits, elicits appreciative and receptive responses from patients as they experience greater convenience and access to healthcare. 

Conclusion

Telemedicine offers an accessible and efficient alternative to in-person care. While there are concerns regarding the quality of care and an obvious digital barrier, the great benefits of the service make a case for its continued usage beyond COVID restrictions. Hybrid models, like Dr. Kashi’s, ensure that patients are able to receive the care they need, regardless of physical or virtual limitations. Ultimately, adopting an inclusive system that includes telemedicine guarantees that the greatest number of patients acquire appropriate medical care.