Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Telemedicine from the Payor Perspective

Considerations for Reimbursement Decisions

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Disease Management & Health Outcomes

Abstract

Telemedicine applications, i.e. the use of telecommunication technologies to deliver health services over a distance, have demonstrated dramatic growth over the past decade. Reimbursement has emerged as a crucial issue as projects attempt to evolve from the demonstration stage to a mainstream component of health delivery. Payors around the world, both public and private, are currently evaluating telemedicine and making funding decisions. As summarized in this article, conclusive evidence regarding the clinical and/or cost effectiveness of telemedicine does not support generalizations regarding outcomes for telemedicine. However, further discussion in this paper demonstrates that this may not preclude payors from deciding to reimburse for services delivered via these technologies. Research from the US and the UK points to other significant historical contributors toward payor reimbursement decisions, such as consumer and market demand and payor mission.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Office for the Advancement of Telehealth [online]. Available from URL: http://www.telehealth.hrsa.gov/welcome.htm [Accessed 2003 Mar 24].

  2. Wittson CL, Affleck DC, Johnson V. Two-way television group therapy. Ment Hosp 1961; 12: 2–23.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jones BN, Colenda CC. Telemedicine and geriatric psychiatry. Psychiatr Serv 1997; 48 (6): 783–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jutra A. Teleroentgen diagnosis by means of videotape recording. Am J Roentgenol 1959; 82: 1099–102.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dunn E, Conrath D, Action H, et al. Telemedicine links patients in Sioux lookout with doctors in Toronto. CMAJ 1980; 22: 484–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Conrath DW, Buckingham P, Dunn EV, et al. An experimental evaluation of alternative communication systems as used for medical diagnosis. Behav Sci 1975; 20: 296–305.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dongier M, Tempier R, Lalinec-Michaud M, et al. Telepsychiatry: psychiatry consultation through two-way television: a controlled study. Can J Psychiatry 1986; 31: 32–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fuchs M. Provider attitudes toward STARPAHC, a telemedicine project on the Papago Reservation. Med Care 1974; 17: 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Murphy LH, Bird KT. Telediagnosis: a new community health resource. Am J Public Health 1974; 64: 113–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Whitten PS. The state of telecommunication technologies to enhance older adults’ access to health services. In: Rogers WA, Fisk AD, editors. Human factors interventions for the health care of older adults. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001: 121–146.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Federal telemedicine update [online]. Available from URL: http://www.federaltelemedicine.com/ [Accessed 2003 Mar 4].

  12. Norwegian Centre for Telemedicine. Financing [online]. Available from URL: http://www2.telemed.no/english/nct/financing.html [Accessed 2003 Mar 4].

  13. Teleplans-WP3. EU projects on telemedicine [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ingbiomedica.unina.it/teleplans_doc/tpl_index.htm [Accessed 2003 Mar 4].

  14. EHTO European Health Telematics Observatory [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ehto.org/index.html [Accessed 2003 Mar 4].

  15. Lee S. Ministry of Information and Communication, Republic of Korea. Current status of and prospects for the telemedicine in Korea [online]. International Telecommunication Union. Second World Telemedicine Symposium for Developing Countries; 1999 June 7–11; Buenos Aires, Argentina. Available from URL: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hrd/publications/reports/1999/telemed/pdffr/15-ARG-KOREA-E.pdf [Accessed 2003 Mar 4].

  16. Dunn BE, Choir H, Almagro UA, et al. Telepathology networking in VISN-12 of the Veterans Health Administration. Telemed J E Health 2000; 6 (3): 349–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Korhonen I, Iivainen T, Lappalainen T, et al. TERVA: system for long-term monitoring of Wellness at home. Telemed J E Health 2001; 7 (1): 61–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Perednia DA, Allen AA. Telemedicine technology and clinical applications. JAMA 1995; 273 (6): 483–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Whitten PS, Cook DJ, Doolittle G. An analysis of provider perceptions for telehospice. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 1998; 15 (5): 267–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Whitten PS, Doolittle G, Hellmich SA, et al. Telehospice: using technology to virtually link nurses and patients. Seattle (WA): National Communication Association, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Allen A, Cox R, Thomas C. Telemedicine in Kansas. Kans Med 1992 Dec; 93 (12): 323–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hashimoto S, Shirato H, Kaneko K, et al. Clinical efficacy of telemedicine in emergency radiotherapy for malignant spinal cord compression [abstract]. J Digit Imaging 2001 Sep; 14 (3): 124–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rogers MA, Small D, Buchan DA, et al. Home monitoring service improves mean arterial pressure in patients with essential hypertension: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2001 Jun 5; 134 (11): 1024–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Phillips VL, Vesmarovich S, Hauber R, et al. Telehealth: reaching out to newly injured spinal cord patients. Public Health Rep 2001; 116 Suppl. 1: 94–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zaylor C, Nelson EL, Cook DJ. Clinical outcomes in a prison telepsychiatry clinic. J Telemed Telecare 2001; 7 Suppl. 1: 47–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. D’souza M. Improving treatment adherence and longitudinal outcomes in patients with serious mental illness by using telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 2002; 8 Suppl. 2: 113–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hunkeler EM, Meresman JF, Hargreaves WA, et al. Efficacy of nurse telehealth care and peer support in augmenting treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Fam Med 2000 Aug; 9 (8): 700–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Loane MA, Bloomer SE, Corbett R, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness of both realtime and store-and-forward telederma-tology compared with conventional care. J Telemed Telecare 2000; 6 Suppl. 1: S1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. Assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of the literature. CMAJ 2001; 165 (6): 765–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hailey D, Roine R, Ohinmaa A. Systematic review of evidence for the benefits of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 2002; 8 Suppl. 1:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Currell R, Urquhart C, Wainwright P, et al. Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Available in the Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.

  32. Hersch WR, Helfand M, Wallace J, et al. Clinical outcomes resulting from telemedicine interventions: a systematic review [online]. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2001; 1 (1): 5 Available from URL: http://www.biomedicalcentral.com/1472-6937/1/5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Whitten P, Allen A. Analysis of telemedicine from an organizational perspective. Telemed J 1995; 1 (3): 203–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cook D, Whitten P. Telemedicine in Kansas from 1994–2001: a longitudinal investigation of organizational issues impacting the development of telemedicine adoption and diffusion. J Healthc Inf Manag 2002 Jun; 16 (3): 60–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Doolittle GC. A cost measurement study for a home-based telehospice service [abstract]. J Telemed Telecare 2000; 6 Suppl. 1: S193–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Morrison J, Bergauer NK, Jacques D, et al. Telemedicine: cost-effective management of high-risk pregnancy [abstract]. Manag Care 2001 Nov 10(11): 42–6, 48–9.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Jong MKK, Horwood K, Robbins CW, et al. A model for remote communities using store and forward telemedicine to reduce health care costs [abstract]. Can J Rural Med Winter 2001; 6 (1): 15–20..

    Google Scholar 

  38. Specht JK, Wakefield B, Flanagan J. Evaluating the cost of one telehealth application connecting an acute and long term care setting. J Gerontol Nurs 2001 Jan; 27 (1): 34–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Vassallo DJ, Hoque F, Roberts MF, et al. An evaluation of the first year’s experience with a low-cost telemedicine link in Bangladesh. J Telemed Telecare 2001; 7 (3): 125–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Whitten PS, Mair FS, Haycox A, et al. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ 2002 Jun 15; 324 (7351): 1434–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wootton R. Guest commentary: systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. Telehealth Practice Report 2002 Sept/Oct; 7 (4): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mair FS, Haycox A, May C, et al. A review of telemedicine cost-effectiveness studies. J Telemed Telecare 2000; 6 Suppl. 1: 38–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Moskowitz D. The trouble with medical innovation. Bus Health 1999 May; 17 (5): 38–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Pelletier K, Astin J. Integration and reimbursement of complementary and alternative medicine by managed care and insurance providers: 2000 update and cohort analysis. Altern Ther Health Med 2002 Jan/Feb; 8 (1): 38–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Zarkowsky H. Managed care organizations’ assessment of reimbursement for new technology, procedures, and drugs. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999; 123: 677–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. May C, Mort M, Mair F, et al. Factors affecting the adoption of healthcare in the United Kingdom: the policy context and the problem of device. Health Informatics J 2001 Sep/Dec; 7(3–4): 127–30.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Elford RE. Telemedicine in northern Norway. J Telemed Telecare 1997; 3: 1–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. van Gool K, Haas MR, Viney R. From flying doctor to virtual doctor: an economic perspective on Australia’s telemedicine experience. J Telemed Telecare 2002; 8: 249–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Guillonneau B, Jayet C, Tewari A, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 2001; 166 (1): 200–1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

There are no sources of funding or on conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Telecommunication, Michigan State University, 409 Communication Arts Building, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824-1212, USA

    Pamela Whitten Ph.D (professor) & Emily Kuwahara

Authors
  1. Pamela Whitten Ph.D
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily Kuwahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamela Whitten Ph.D.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Whitten, P., Kuwahara, E. Telemedicine from the Payor Perspective. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 11, 291–298 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200311050-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200311050-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation