TeleOutreach or TeleProfiteering

The 2010s have been a time of great claims of value from numerous innovations. While it seems that much is being done to help to improve health access, there has actually been very little change. The new proposals can actually undermine health outcomes and undermine the local workforce that is most important for access to care. Resistance to Telehealth may be futile, but there will be consequences that we need to understand.
When High Tech and High Touch Go Wrong

 Telehealth has much surface appeal. High tech with the appearance of high touch has appeal. It seems so simple. After all in the photos or descriptions it appears that all you have to do is just link up and someone magically appears to address your needs.

For the purposes of discussion we can leave behind the discussions of laws, licensures, privacy requirements, payment uncertainties, certifications, and also controversies regarding the quality of telehealth.

 There are a number of reasons why telehealth is not all that it seems.

Overutilization and Higher Costs Via TeleProfiteering


Retail clinics have demonstrated that convenience is costly. With televisits there will be a wallet biopsy up front and care only for those who pay up front despite claims of access improvement. 

Repeat customer focus could lead to medication overuses. Those who want their antibiotics day 1 of a bad cold are going to go to telehealth services that provide this.

Ecology of Medical Care says out of 1000 people about 800 have some health concern or symptom each month, 327 think about seeking care, and 217 visit an office (half in primary care). Those who think about profit all waking hours know that they can exploit about 30 more visits from each of three categories - those who have symptoms, those who think about a visit, and those who visit an office. 

The potential is to have as many visits from telehealth as seen in primary care. At $50 - 100 dollars a televisit for hundreds of millions in additional visits a year one can see the attraction to those who devote their lives to profit.

This appears consistent with the rest of the US design for highest cost and lowest yield health care. 

It is also consistent with Fire, Ready, Aim as implementation comes first, then adjustments, and finally studies to document benefits and consequences.
 

TeleOutreach Can Complement Local Care 

Sometimes those who institute telemedicine have a greater understanding of local needs and patient needs and family needs.

 Project Echo in New Mexico represents telemedicine linked to local care for the purpose of local care support. Project Echo supports local health care professions who present their patients to University specialists - giving the optimal savings of time and costs while providing teachable moments to boost the capabilities of local nurses, clinicians, and physicians. This allows services to exist locally in areas involving general specialties and some subspecialty care. Project Echo has even been expanded to train local health care teams - helping to keep them locally to deliver and expanded range of services. 

 Training of health professional students via Project Echo has the potential to revolutionize training and make it specific to local care. There is great potential in keeping training local and avoiding centralized training.


Specific uses of telehealth have been demonstrated to be powerful for teaching and for specialty services outreach (Project Echo).

Telehealth can save costs and improve access in conjunction with home care for complex homebound (usually Dual Eligible) but the constructions of beneficial telehealth are entirely different compared to convenience telehealth which is more appropriately termed TeleProfiteering.
 
Determinants of Health Falling Down By Design

Telehealth can ships dollars away from places that need dollars to places with higher concentrations of dollars, workforce, and services. Jobs, economics, and social determinants of health represent the investments in people and communities that are the key to improved health outcomes. More fertile US soil is required for improved health and health care interventions.  Dollars not sent due to lower payments represent discrimination. Dollars shipped out of town translate to fewer dollars circulating in a town.

Improved health outcomes require changes in local social determinants, local environments, local resources, local jobs, local income, local organization for care, and local behaviors.

Telehealth is a clinical intervention and as such can only provide a small less than 15% influence upon health outcomes. This is likely to be high cost relative to benefit not much different from other clinical interventions.

Telehealth Represents A Policy or Design Change

The changes result in winners and losers. No change works well for all. Telehealth concentrates dollars into the hands of those investing in telehealth. Clearly there will be many smaller players and eventually only a few bigger players. The winners are likely to be the same corporate profit conglomerates who see new opportunities for profits.

Potential TeleProfiteering Abuses

Telehealth (or retail care or urgent care) can be abused or overused as with retail clinics that increase convenience and increase costs. It can take the easiest patients/conditions and can leave the most complex for local providers.  

And HIT, EHR, digital, and telehealth can be outsourced outside of the United States. Shipping jobs outside of the US is a really bad idea to improve social determinants where needed.

Telemedicine is an example of high tech that promises much but can fail to measure up from the local perspective.

Telehealth Cannot Solve Deficits of Workforce

The problem of access is still the problem of insufficient workforce across primary care, mental health, and basic services. There is still a requirement for workforce. Trained team members are still needed to interact with patients in need of care.

Telemedicine only changes the location of the workforce. Not surprisingly the telemedicine design results in more workforce where workforce is concentrated and less workforce where workforce is lacking.

We still have overall deficits of primary care and mental health workforce because of decades of payment too low. Telehealth cannot solve deficits by design and could make them worse.

Telehealth is not a specific workforce solution. It is a different venue.

But of course this will not prevent the promotions of telehealth as a solution for workforce.

TeleOutreach is a solution that builds and supports local workforce. TeleProfiteering does not.

Designs that fail for local remain a problem for local

 Who Benefits from Telemedicine?

Telemedicine benefits those who supply the equipment, software, and connections. The media, particularly the digital promotion media profit from Telemedicine considerations. Not surprisingly promotions of telemedicine proceed from similar sources. 

 Large systems and academic institutions can benefit from telemedicine. This can be set up to benefit local needs or help concentrate dollars where dollars are already concentrated.



Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.
Martin Luther King, Jr. 



Recent Blogs 

The Tyranny of Health Care Research

Why Prevent Doctors and Nurses from Teaching and Nourishing?

Office Visits Do Not Break the Bank But Insurers Can

Necessary Rather than Disruptive Transformations

Ending the Disruption of Pay for Performance and Payment Plans that Lack Evidence Basis and Discriminate

Best of Basic Health Access Blogs

Do Family Medicine Leaders Deserve the Trust of the Students Choosing FM?

Family Medicine Leaders Must Move Access Forward Not Backward

Readmissions Better from ACA or Preexistingly Worse from DRG?

Does Academia Compromise Health Care for Most Americans?

Demographics Distributions and Discriminations in Health Care

Demographics Against the Democrats

Not Easy Being Swiss Cheesy in Health Info Tech

The 25th Anniversary of the COGME Third Report and No Change By Design

Why Is Value So Hard to Recognize in Health Care and why does family medicine not value family physicians and the high value places where they practice

The Four Horsemen of the Primary Care Apocalypse - Medicaid, High Deductible, Veteran, and Medicare Plans shape failure by payment design

Plea to Academic Leaders - Please No More So Called Primary Care Solutions - No Training Intervention or Practice Rearrangement Can Work without Payment Reform

What Is Stunning in Primary Care Is No Change By Design - Numerous failed attempts to recover primary care all point to insufficient payment made worse by accelerating cost of care. 




Robert C. Bowman, M.D.        Robert.Bowman@DignityHealth.org

The blogs represent the opinion of the blogger alone.

Copyright 2017

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Fine CMS You Have Gotten Us Into

Perhaps we are indeed back to the time of Another Fine Mess (Laurel and Hardy). In a mad rush to implement innovation and to save all possible costs, CMS is creating complications for people that it is most responsible to protect. As PBS and Ken Burns celebrate the legacy of The Roosevelts, it is tragic to see what has become of over a century of effort involving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care equity. The United States has one of the most complex health designs and clearly the various designers often know not what they are doing to others. More cartoons and comedians would find this a ripe area for material if not for the suffering involved. Health and Human Services has a huge role across Social Security and US health care. CMS or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a dominant role to play in the design of health care in the United States.  CMS can be progressive or regressive. Interestingly CMS has chosen to appear to be progressive and in
Read more

The Essential True Reform Restores Primary Care and Much More

The list of distractions from True Reform are impressive. For decades True Reform has been specifically avoided as primary care worsens within practices and from outside. The demise is most specifically about the financial design. Unless there is a focus on True Reform, there is little hope for Basic Health Access. This may not make as much sense to those outside of family medicine. Family physicians not familiar with AAFP may also be clueless. If you think that you can fix primary care with more technology, more rearrangements, more types of health professional graduates, or more expansions of training - think again. None of these have any hope of working without financial design changes - major changes. The following are various concepts that dominate the discussions at AAFP and primary care meetings and media releases of associations and foundations and institutions. Members, staff, media releases, programs, and personnel have been reviewed.  There is little about Tru
Read more

Innovation Is the Problem Not the Solution for Worsening Health

Image
Innovation is good. Innovation worship is not good. Innovation application without scientific testing or clinical trials is unethical regarding clinical interventions and should be just as prohibited with regard to health policy. Clinical trials can harm hundreds or thousands. Innovative policies can harm millions. It takes a reasonable understanding of health care, health care outcomes, social determinants, and the investments that most improve social determinants to understand the consequences arising from the innovative nightmares past, present, and future. If you review the information sources with a critical eye, you too may find that the innovative policy designs have been disruptive to care, have hurt health care where health care is most needed, have reduced access to care, and have resulted in distortions in the literature. Indeed what is accepted and published in journals seriously lacks consideration of alternative hypothesis, lacks inclusion of many pages of limitatio
Read more