Telehealth proponents expected the pandemic to net them a windfall of convincing evidence that virtual care could increase quality and cut spending. But two years after health systems went virtual almost overnight, industry watchers are still disputing a key aspect that could determine telehealth’s fate: whether the option for virtual visits means patients will see doctors more often than they would in-person.
Whether telehealth is a substitute for — or an addition to — in-person care could clarify if it drives up costs for insurers and providers. Telehealth advocates have for years sought to prove to Congress that it’s a substitute, and that expanding Medicare coverage for virtual care wouldn’t significantly increase federal spending.
But despite an unprecedented volume of virtual visits during the pandemic, there’s a dearth of academic research that can definitively answer that question. Some analyses suggest patients use telehealth instead of in-person visits, and telehealth vendors like Cigna’s MDLIVE tell STAT that virtual care has reduced the number of overall visits. Other researchers describe an increase in follow-up visits, though that the impact may vary depending on speciality.
This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers
Unlock this article — and get additional analysis of the technologies disrupting health care — by subscribing to STAT+.
Already have an account? Log in
About the Author Reprints
To submit a correction request, please visit our Contact Us page.
