Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64050-7
{"title":"Telemedicine: Overview and Application in Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/978-3-030-64050-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64050-7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":22295,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine reports","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86398877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Julie M Fritz, Elizabeth Lane, Kate I Minick, Tyler Bardsley, Gerard Brennan, Stephen J Hunter, Terrence McGee, Fenan S Rassu, Stephen T Wegener, Richard L Skolasky
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 prompted the rapid adoption of telehealth to provide physical therapy. Patients' perceptions about telehealth physical therapy are mostly unknown. This study describes perceptions of telehealth physical therapy among patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Methods: This study surveyed participants in an ongoing multisite clinical trial of nonpharmacological LBP treatments. Participants were asked about their willingness to use telehealth for physical therapy and with other providers and completed the PROMIS-29. Results: Surveys were received from 102 participants (mean age = 48.5 [standard deviation; SD = 11.6]). Thirty-six (35.3%) expressed willingness to receive telehealth physical therapy, 22 were neutral (21.6%), and 44 were unwilling (43.1%). The percentage expressing willingness for telehealth physical therapy was lower than it was for family medicine (p < 0.001) or mental health (p < 0.001). Older (p = 0.049) and Black participants (p = 0.01) more likely expressed willingness to use telehealth for physical therapy. Conclusion: Education and familiarity may help patients view telehealth physical therapy more favorably. Clinical Trial Registration (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03859713).
背景:2019冠状病毒病促使远程医疗迅速采用,以提供物理治疗。患者对远程医疗物理治疗的看法大多是未知的。本研究描述慢性腰痛(LBP)患者对远程健康物理治疗的认知。方法:本研究调查了正在进行的非药物治疗腰痛的多地点临床试验的参与者。参与者被问及他们是否愿意使用远程医疗进行物理治疗并与其他提供者合作,并完成了promise -29。结果:102名参与者(平均年龄48.5岁[标准差;sd = 11.6])。有36人(35.3%)表示愿意接受远程健康物理治疗,22人表示中立(21.6%),44人表示不愿意(43.1%)。表示愿意使用远程医疗物理治疗的百分比低于家庭医学(p p = 0.049),黑人(p = 0.01)更愿意使用远程医疗物理治疗。结论:教育程度和熟悉程度有助于患者对远程医疗物理治疗有更积极的认识。临床试验注册(clinicaltrials.gov NCT03859713)。
{"title":"Perceptions of Telehealth Physical Therapy Among Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.","authors":"Julie M Fritz, Elizabeth Lane, Kate I Minick, Tyler Bardsley, Gerard Brennan, Stephen J Hunter, Terrence McGee, Fenan S Rassu, Stephen T Wegener, Richard L Skolasky","doi":"10.1089/tmr.2021.0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmr.2021.0028","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Coronavirus disease 2019 prompted the rapid adoption of telehealth to provide physical therapy. Patients' perceptions about telehealth physical therapy are mostly unknown. This study describes perceptions of telehealth physical therapy among patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). <b>Methods:</b> This study surveyed participants in an ongoing multisite clinical trial of nonpharmacological LBP treatments. Participants were asked about their willingness to use telehealth for physical therapy and with other providers and completed the PROMIS-29. <b>Results:</b> Surveys were received from 102 participants (mean age = 48.5 [standard deviation; SD = 11.6]). Thirty-six (35.3%) expressed willingness to receive telehealth physical therapy, 22 were neutral (21.6%), and 44 were unwilling (43.1%). The percentage expressing willingness for telehealth physical therapy was lower than it was for family medicine (<i>p</i> < 0.001) or mental health (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Older (<i>p</i> = 0.049) and Black participants (<i>p</i> = 0.01) more likely expressed willingness to use telehealth for physical therapy. <b>Conclusion:</b> Education and familiarity may help patients view telehealth physical therapy more favorably. Clinical Trial Registration (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03859713).</p>","PeriodicalId":22295,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine reports","volume":"2 1","pages":"258-263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8670598/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9933130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-18eCollection Date: 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1089/tmr.2020.0005
Roseanne Fairchild, Shiaw-Fen Ferng-Kuo, Hicham Rahmouni, Daniel Hardesty
Background: Rates for all-cause U.S. emergency department (ED) visits to rural critical access hospitals (CAHs) have increased by 50% since 2005. During the same time period, total number of U.S. hospital admissions for a mental health (MH) crisis has increased by 12.2%, with rural counties demonstrating the largest suicide rate increases overall. Introduction: Increasing number of rural patients are reporting need for MH care in the region's four rural EDs. Characteristics of ED telemental health services were evaluated, including MH diagnostic category, voluntary vs. involuntary commitment (IC), forensic vs. nonforensic presentation, ED throughput, disposition, and payor reimbursement. Materials and Methods: Observational 2.5-year program evaluation of telemental health care delivery for children (n = 114) and adults (n = 417) who were evaluated by a rural ED physician and received an MH diagnosis. Participants (N = 531) were treated by a licensed psychiatrist through telemental care delivery from September 2017 to April 2020. Results: Noncommitted ED MH patients (86%; n = 455) were distributed across three major diagnostic groups: (1) depression, anxiety, or other mental illness (35%); (2) substance abuse (33%); or (3) suicide risk (32%), with 47% admitted inpatients (IPs), 47% referred outpatient (OPs), and 6% admitted to CAH. Fourteen percent (n = 76/531) of ED MH patients were subsequently IC, with 67% of those assessed as needing IP care. Forty-nine percent (n = 37) of IC patients presented in police custody. Most common diagnosis for IC patients was suicidal ideation/attempt (χ2 [2, N = 452] = 12.884, p = 0.002). Admitted patients experienced significantly longer length of stay than those with OP referral (p = 0.001). Mean total payor reimbursements for ED MH care were significantly lower than actual ED costs (p < 0.001). Discussion: Innovative approaches to telemental care for IC and non-IC patients need to be piloted and comparatively evaluated in rural CAHs. Conclusion: As the gateway to critically needed MH care, rural CAHs and public services pivotal to care access (e.g., law enforcement) need additional resources and support.
{"title":"An Observational Study of Telemental Care Delivery and the Context for Involuntary Commitment for Mental Health Patients in a Group of Rural Emergency Departments.","authors":"Roseanne Fairchild, Shiaw-Fen Ferng-Kuo, Hicham Rahmouni, Daniel Hardesty","doi":"10.1089/tmr.2020.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmr.2020.0005","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Rates for all-cause U.S. emergency department (ED) visits to rural critical access hospitals (CAHs) have increased by 50% since 2005. During the same time period, total number of U.S. hospital admissions for a mental health (MH) crisis has increased by 12.2%, with rural counties demonstrating the largest suicide rate increases overall. <b>Introduction:</b> Increasing number of rural patients are reporting need for MH care in the region's four rural EDs. Characteristics of ED telemental health services were evaluated, including MH diagnostic category, voluntary vs. involuntary commitment (IC), forensic vs. nonforensic presentation, ED throughput, disposition, and payor reimbursement. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Observational 2.5-year program evaluation of telemental health care delivery for children (<i>n</i> = 114) and adults (<i>n</i> = 417) who were evaluated by a rural ED physician and received an MH diagnosis. Participants (<i>N</i> = 531) were treated by a licensed psychiatrist through telemental care delivery from September 2017 to April 2020. <b>Results:</b> Noncommitted ED MH patients (86%; <i>n</i> = 455) were distributed across three major diagnostic groups: (1) depression, anxiety, or other mental illness (35%); (2) substance abuse (33%); or (3) suicide risk (32%), with 47% admitted inpatients (IPs), 47% referred outpatient (OPs), and 6% admitted to CAH. Fourteen percent (<i>n</i> = 76/531) of ED MH patients were subsequently IC, with 67% of those assessed as needing IP care. Forty-nine percent (<i>n</i> = 37) of IC patients presented in police custody. Most common diagnosis for IC patients was suicidal ideation/attempt (χ<sup>2</sup> [2, <i>N</i> = 452] = 12.884, <i>p</i> = 0.002). Admitted patients experienced significantly longer length of stay than those with OP referral (<i>p</i> = 0.001). Mean total payor reimbursements for ED MH care were significantly lower than actual ED costs (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Discussion:</b> Innovative approaches to telemental care for IC and non-IC patients need to be piloted and comparatively evaluated in rural CAHs. <b>Conclusion:</b> As the gateway to critically needed MH care, rural CAHs and public services pivotal to care access (e.g., law enforcement) need additional resources and support.</p>","PeriodicalId":22295,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine reports","volume":"1 1","pages":"22-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7714264/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38679217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-18eCollection Date: 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1089/tmr.2020.0009
Lawrence R Wechsler, Srinath Adusumalli, Mary Elisabeth Deleener, Ann Marie Huffenberger, Gregory Kruse, C William Hanson
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency necessitated changes in health care delivery that will have lasting implications. The University of Pennsylvania Health System is a large multihospital system with an academic medical center at its core. To continue to care for patients with and without COVID-19, the system had to rapidly deploy telemedicine. We describe the challenges faced with the existing telemedicine infrastructures, the central mechanisms created to facilitate the necessary conversions, and the workflow changes instituted to support both inpatient and outpatient activities for thousands of providers, many of whom had little or no experience with telemedicine. We also discuss innovations that occurred as a result of this transition and the future of telemedicine at our institution.
{"title":"Reflections on a Health System's Telemedicine Marathon.","authors":"Lawrence R Wechsler, Srinath Adusumalli, Mary Elisabeth Deleener, Ann Marie Huffenberger, Gregory Kruse, C William Hanson","doi":"10.1089/tmr.2020.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmr.2020.0009","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency necessitated changes in health care delivery that will have lasting implications. The University of Pennsylvania Health System is a large multihospital system with an academic medical center at its core. To continue to care for patients with and without COVID-19, the system had to rapidly deploy telemedicine. We describe the challenges faced with the existing telemedicine infrastructures, the central mechanisms created to facilitate the necessary conversions, and the workflow changes instituted to support both inpatient and outpatient activities for thousands of providers, many of whom had little or no experience with telemedicine. We also discuss innovations that occurred as a result of this transition and the future of telemedicine at our institution.</p>","PeriodicalId":22295,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine reports","volume":" ","pages":"2-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8812293/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40042506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: Telemedicine use has increased due to stay-at-home orders during the novel coronavirus 2019 pandemic. We explored ambulatory provider's perception on telemedicine. Methods: An anonymized survey was e-mailed to physicians and midlevel providers of our university hospital ambulatory clinics to assess current use, preferences for future use, and satisfaction with televisits. Results: Of all providers, 249 responded (response rate 24%, 121 [48.6%] men, 177 [71.1%] attending physicians, 43 [17.2%] trainees, and 29 [11.6%] midlevel providers). Most respondents (120, 48.2%) belonged to subspecialties in medicine. At the time of the survey, 168 (67.5%) were using telemedicine for less than half of all visits and had video capabilities, of whom 224 (90%) considered it to be effective for return visits and 37 (15%) perceived it to be effective for new patients, 217 (87.1%) wanted to continue with telemedicine practice, and 113 (45.4%) preferred to use telemedicine for more than a quarter of their future patients even after the pandemic. Most (194 [77.9%]) were satisfied with telemedicine and we found no differences among specialties. Those with audio-only visits reported least effectiveness for new patient evaluation (p < 0.001) and overall provider satisfaction (p = 0.02) when compared with others. Those who saw more than a quarter of their patients through televisits desired to increase their future televisits to >50% including new patients (p < 0.001). Conclusions: There is widespread interest in telemedicine in all specialties. Acceptance is high for return visits, but low for new patient visits. Improvement in technology to have both audio and video capability consistently may foster further interest toward increasing telemedicine in the future.
背景:由于2019年新型冠状病毒大流行期间的居家令,远程医疗的使用有所增加。我们探讨了门诊医生对远程医疗的看法。方法:通过电子邮件对大学附属医院门诊的医生和中级医务人员进行匿名调查,以评估目前的使用情况、对未来使用的偏好以及对电视的满意度。结果:共有249名医护人员回应,其中男性121人(48.6%),主治医师177人(71.1%),实习医师43人(17.2%),中级医护人员29人(11.6%)。大多数受访者(120人,48.2%)属于医学亚专科。在进行调查时,168家(67.5%)医院使用远程医疗进行不到一半的就诊,并具有视频功能,其中224家(90%)认为远程医疗对回访有效,37家(15%)认为远程医疗对新患者有效,217家(87.1%)希望继续进行远程医疗实践,113家(45.4%)希望对超过四分之一的未来患者使用远程医疗,即使在大流行之后。大多数(194例[77.9%])对远程医疗感到满意,科室间无差异。与其他患者相比,那些只进行音频访问的患者报告的新患者评估效果最低(p p = 0.02)。那些通过电视看诊超过四分之一患者的医生希望将他们未来的电视看诊率提高到50%以上,包括新患者(p)。结论:所有专业对远程医疗都有广泛的兴趣。复诊的接受度很高,但新病人的接受度很低。同时具备音频和视频功能的技术改进可能会促进对未来增加远程医疗的进一步兴趣。
{"title":"Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic as Catalyst for Telemedicine Adoption: A Single-Center Experience.","authors":"Kunal Malhotra, Aparna Sivaraman, Hariharan Regunath","doi":"10.1089/tmr.2020.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmr.2020.0003","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Telemedicine use has increased due to stay-at-home orders during the novel coronavirus 2019 pandemic. We explored ambulatory provider's perception on telemedicine. <b>Methods:</b> An anonymized survey was e-mailed to physicians and midlevel providers of our university hospital ambulatory clinics to assess current use, preferences for future use, and satisfaction with televisits. <b>Results:</b> Of all providers, 249 responded (response rate 24%, 121 [48.6%] men, 177 [71.1%] attending physicians, 43 [17.2%] trainees, and 29 [11.6%] midlevel providers). Most respondents (120, 48.2%) belonged to subspecialties in medicine. At the time of the survey, 168 (67.5%) were using telemedicine for less than half of all visits and had video capabilities, of whom 224 (90%) considered it to be effective for return visits and 37 (15%) perceived it to be effective for new patients, 217 (87.1%) wanted to continue with telemedicine practice, and 113 (45.4%) preferred to use telemedicine for more than a quarter of their future patients even after the pandemic. Most (194 [77.9%]) were satisfied with telemedicine and we found no differences among specialties. Those with audio-only visits reported least effectiveness for new patient evaluation (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and overall provider satisfaction (<i>p</i> = 0.02) when compared with others. Those who saw more than a quarter of their patients through televisits desired to increase their future televisits to >50% including new patients (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions:</b> There is widespread interest in telemedicine in all specialties. Acceptance is high for return visits, but low for new patient visits. Improvement in technology to have both audio and video capability consistently may foster further interest toward increasing telemedicine in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":22295,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine reports","volume":" ","pages":"16-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8812292/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40042111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-18eCollection Date: 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1089/tmr.2020.0002
Getu Gamo Sagaro, Gopi Battineni, Francesco Amenta
Background: Different studies showed that the use of telemedicine is effective in reducing hospital burden, suffering from patients, need of transports, hospital fear, save money and time, and increasing the quality of health care. However, the implementation of telemedicine countenances different challenges in developing countries generally and in Ethiopia, particularly. This review aims to evaluate barriers affecting sustainable telemedicine implementation in Ethiopia. Methods: PubMed (Medline), Google Scholar, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched between July 4, 2020 and July 28, 2020. Studies published between 2005 and June 30, 2020 were considered. Relevant articles were selected by reviewing keywords, titles, and abstracts. Out of 40 articles, 33 articles remained after removing duplicates. We finally analyzed 14 articles from the mentioned databases based on our eligibility criteria and identified different barriers. We followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRSIMA 2009) checklist for this review. Results: We identified 25 barriers through 14 articles and classified barriers into organizational, users, and staff and programmers' barriers. Accordingly, organizational, users, and staff and programmer barriers were 12 (48%), 7 (28%), and 6 (24%), respectively, with the frequency of occurrence through 14 articles. Cost, awareness, and resistance to change were the most frequently reported barriers among organizational, user, and staff and programmer barriers, respectively. Conclusions: Infrastructure and costs were the most frequently reported barriers, and staff resistance to change was also the critical factor in influencing the sustainable implementation of telemedicine in Ethiopia.
{"title":"Barriers to Sustainable Telemedicine Implementation in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Getu Gamo Sagaro, Gopi Battineni, Francesco Amenta","doi":"10.1089/tmr.2020.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmr.2020.0002","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Different studies showed that the use of telemedicine is effective in reducing hospital burden, suffering from patients, need of transports, hospital fear, save money and time, and increasing the quality of health care. However, the implementation of telemedicine countenances different challenges in developing countries generally and in Ethiopia, particularly. This review aims to evaluate barriers affecting sustainable telemedicine implementation in Ethiopia. <b>Methods:</b> PubMed (Medline), Google Scholar, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched between July 4, 2020 and July 28, 2020. Studies published between 2005 and June 30, 2020 were considered. Relevant articles were selected by reviewing keywords, titles, and abstracts. Out of 40 articles, 33 articles remained after removing duplicates. We finally analyzed 14 articles from the mentioned databases based on our eligibility criteria and identified different barriers. We followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRSIMA 2009) checklist for this review. <b>Results:</b> We identified 25 barriers through 14 articles and classified barriers into organizational, users, and staff and programmers' barriers. Accordingly, organizational, users, and staff and programmer barriers were 12 (48%), 7 (28%), and 6 (24%), respectively, with the frequency of occurrence through 14 articles. Cost, awareness, and resistance to change were the most frequently reported barriers among organizational, user, and staff and programmer barriers, respectively. <b>Conclusions:</b> Infrastructure and costs were the most frequently reported barriers, and staff resistance to change was also the critical factor in influencing the sustainable implementation of telemedicine in Ethiopia.</p>","PeriodicalId":22295,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine reports","volume":" ","pages":"8-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/tmr.2020.0002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40042507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Successful telehealth business models are a topic of regular discussion in the healthcare industry, and the financial details of telehealth programs, initiatives, and companies are central to program viability and sustainability. Claims and total payments toward telehealth services are rapidly increasing each year; therefore, it is becoming imperative that organizations carefully navigate the regulatory, financial, operational, and technical aspects impacting, and many times determining, the financial health of telehealth programs. The objective of this article is to define and articulate the financial variables and business models that are the lifeblood of today’s successful telehealth programs, and also to provide insights and information to assist organizations in navigating the nuances of telehealth financial modeling, monitoring, and management. The financial and business models surrounding telehealth are unique for a number of reasons, mainly because the calculations and architecture of such models often contain many continuous variables, such as people (clinical providers and patients), geography (rural or metropolitan areas), telehealth governance structure, the service provided, the reimbursement or coverage eligibility, the technology used, the quality of care rendered, and the outcome of the care rendered. In addition, a clear need for a departure from traditional ways of projecting return on investment (ROI) becomes apparent with the layering of additional complexities of restrictive payer requirements, various business models, and the transition from volume to value.
{"title":"Telehealth Finance Variables and Successful Business Models","authors":"B. Arkwright, Monica Leslie, Morgan Light","doi":"10.30953/TMT.V4.140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30953/TMT.V4.140","url":null,"abstract":"Successful telehealth business models are a topic of regular discussion in the healthcare industry, and the financial details of telehealth programs, initiatives, and companies are central to program viability and sustainability. Claims and total payments toward telehealth services are rapidly increasing each year; therefore, it is becoming imperative that organizations carefully navigate the regulatory, financial, operational, and technical aspects impacting, and many times determining, the financial health of telehealth programs. The objective of this article is to define and articulate the financial variables and business models that are the lifeblood of today’s successful telehealth programs, and also to provide insights and information to assist organizations in navigating the nuances of telehealth financial modeling, monitoring, and management. \u0000The financial and business models surrounding telehealth are unique for a number of reasons, mainly because the calculations and architecture of such models often contain many continuous variables, such as people (clinical providers and patients), geography (rural or metropolitan areas), telehealth governance structure, the service provided, the reimbursement or coverage eligibility, the technology used, the quality of care rendered, and the outcome of the care rendered. In addition, a clear need for a departure from traditional ways of projecting return on investment (ROI) becomes apparent with the layering of additional complexities of restrictive payer requirements, various business models, and the transition from volume to value.","PeriodicalId":22295,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine reports","volume":"110 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87656677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}