Dennis Truong, MD, is an emergency medicine specialist and the telemedicine director for the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group.
Smart phones and tablets are everywhere. Adoption of these devices now largely spans age, income, race and ethnicity. Americans, of all stripes, are emailing, tweeting, posting, banking, gaming, navigating, checking weather and so much more almost nonstop. Yet when it comes to using those nearly ubiquitous devices, only 2 percent report having access to video visits with their doctor.
In stark contrast, almost 9 in 10 family physicians believe telehealth – the suite of technologies and tactics to deliver virtual medical, health, and education services – is a way to increase access to care. Putting two and two together, that means far more than 2 percent of people should have access to video visits – a core component of telehealth.
Dr. Truong conducts a simulated video visit.
Why this disconnect? Telehealth regulatory policy for one. From the patchwork of state by state rules to privacy protections to reimbursement rules. Doctors (and some patients) also worry that telehealth has limited diagnostic and treatment value relative to face-to-face care and will adversely impact the day-to-day practice of an office. Not only does it interfere with the routine of quickly moving from one prepped patient to the next, it changes how you chart, plan for space in your office, bill and collect, and so much more.
The regulatory and payment framework must evolve, and technological advances in remote capabilities can help validate telehealth as a reliable solution. But it is easy to overlook the fact that none of it matters if doctors don’t want to change their norms. And, that adoption will fail if the consumer satisfaction barometer is not met as a result of a fragmented experience. At the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group (MAPMG), and all the Permanente groups of Kaiser Permanente, video visits have become a key part of our clinical offering. Making it work has been a case study in careful planning rather than chasing a “sexy” concept without judiciously working out all the details.
Since launching video visits three years ago, we carefully worked through the legal and regulatory steps. We put in the necessary equipment, trained every provider, collaboratively chose the specified set of clinical chief complaints that should be eligible for video, and slowly built video visit appointments into the schedule that gave physicians dedicated time for the care. The “competition” isn’t other providers. It is the doctor’s frame of reference. Is this as easy as when the patient is sitting in the exam room ready and waiting with forms completed, vitals collected, and nursing tasks done?
As the industry saw more platforms and pure-play video offerings emerge, we worked to stay true to a principle that says video care shouldn’t be fragmented from the normal care patients receive. Patients do not want to repeat themselves, pay for redundant tests, or fail to get a diagnosis because the doctor doesn’t have enough information to definitively make one. Nor do they want to have their “regular” doctor fail to provide care in consideration of what is known from any previous video encounters.
We purposefully integrated our solution into the same integrated electronic medical record we use for every face-to-face visit, telephone, or email visit. All the information is there to make the right clinical call. The ordering and referring process is identical (and can be done for the patient by the provider). The activity is visible to the patient’s regular provider(s).
When practiced right, it becomes as clear as the face on that smart phone screen that video visits are a powerful tool to improve access and patient satisfaction. The medical community needs to invest in making it not simply available to more patients, but making it available in a way that allows them to integrate that care with their overall primary and specialty care.