Plan offers members transparent pricing for medications and 24/7 virtual consults
Amazon is working to be price competitive in the healthcare products and services it provides. A recently launched plan offers Prime members fixed prices and affordable monthly rates for telehealth visits, treatment plans, and medication delivery for various types of health, beauty, and lifestyle care. Healthcare providers such as office-based physicians, clinical laboratories, and anatomic pathology groups, may once again be impacted by Amazon’s foray into medical care.
This is not the first time that Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) has waded into the medical pond. In 2022, the Seattle-based ecommerce company purchased One Medical (NASDAQ:ONEM) for $3.9B while at the same time launching Amazon Clinic (now known as Amazon One Medical Pay-per-visit), a virtual healthcare service, in an attempt to “reinvent” healthcare. Dark Daily covered these events in an ebrief at that time.
Since then, Amazon has offered pay-per-visit telehealth consultations to determine treatments for more than 30 common ailments such as pink eye (conjunctivitis), flu, and sinus conditions. Now, Amazon is adding “low, clear upfront pricing for a clinical visit, treatment plan, and fast, free medication delivery for Prime members for a range of common health, beauty, and lifestyle concerns, including anti-aging skincare treatment, men’s hair loss, erectile dysfunction, eyelash growth, and motion sickness,” according to an Amazon news release.
“We’re committed to giving customers convenient, affordable care options that put them in control of their health,” said Bergen Penhart, general manager for Amazon One Medical Pay-per-visit, in the news release. “This new offering makes it easy for Prime members to get expert clinical advice and prescribed treatments for common health, beauty, and lifestyle needs, all from the comfort of home.”
The platform supports both on-demand messaging and virtual video telehealth visits to address more than 30 common medical issues.
“This simple care experience was built to meet the needs of today’s customer. At Amazon, we’re working to reduce the burden on patients who’d like to move forward with care, but may be tired of navigating the hurdles of our healthcare system, waiting in a long line at the pharmacy, or worried about a surprise bill or medication cost,” said Harvard-trained lung specialist and chief medical officer for Amazon, Vin Gupta, MD (above). “We’re helping patients re-engage in care and spend time doing what they love instead.” These new medical initiatives from Amazon are meant to be convenient for patients, but have an impact on local healthcare providers, clinical laboratories, and pharmacies. (Photo copyright: Vin Gupta, MD.)
Convenience, Transparency, 24/7 Access to Healthcare
Telemedicine has seen a sharp rise in recent years, aided by necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Forbes reports that the percentage of hospitals offering telemedicine rose to 72% in 2021. Since so many Americans today use the Internet for everything from shopping for medications to interfacing with healthcare providers, it makes sense that Amazon, one of the world’s most successful online retailers, would want a cut of the action.
So what is the retail giant offering now that improves upon its previous healthcare services? It is promoting fixed prices and monthly payments with complete transparency. There are also no surprise bills for Amazon One Medical patients. Prime members can see the price for their telehealth consultation and prescription before deciding whether to go forward with the appointment and treatment.
In addition, Amazon One Medical patients can use a smartphone app (available on both Android and Apple iPhone) to review prices for treating five common health conditions and beauty treatments, as well as meeting virtually with a clinician 24/7 from anywhere in the world. In some areas Amazon even offers same-day or next-day medication deliveries.
“This simple, upfront pricing helps customers shop for their healthcare and make informed, confident decisions. Customers only pay for the cost of the consultation and medication (if prescribed). There are no additional fees, expenses, or subscriptions needed beyond Amazon Prime,” the news release states.
First Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed against Amazon One Medical
However, the road to success in healthcare is not without its potholes. In “Amazon One Medical Call Centers Found Wanting in Washington Post Report,” we covered a 2024 Washington Post story on leaked documents that appeared to indicate Amazon’s One Medical primary care call center was not using trained, certified medical professionals to field patient phone calls and provide telehealth guidance.
This led to disappointment among Amazon One Medical patients, we reported.
According to The Washington Post, Amazon bought One Medical and hired workers for their call centers with “limited training and little to no medical experience.” This allegedly caused serious medical issues such as high blood pressure spikes and blood in stool to go unrecognized.
Caroline O’Donovan, the Washington Post reporter who broke the story, told PBS, “In the documents that were leaked to us, there’s a doctor who wrote a note saying, ‘I don’t think these call center people even realize that they’re triaging patients, which is not something that they’re qualified to do.’”
Amazon acknowledged that initial calls could have been handled more effectively, however the company insisted that no patients were harmed. In an email statement, Amazon spokesperson Dawn Brun said, “We take patients’ feedback seriously and the [Washington Post] story mischaracterizes the dedication we have to our patients and care teams.”
Nevertheless, Amazon One Medical now faces a lawsuit. The Daily Mail reported that Suzanne Tong of Oakland, Calif., is suing Amazon for negligence after her husband died following a video consultation during which he was told to “take an inhaler” for symptoms that included shortness of breath and blue feet.
“Hours later, the 45-year-old was rushed to the emergency department at the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, where [according to court documents] he ‘collapsed in the waiting room and expired,’” The Daily Mail reported, adding, “The [court] filing claims that ‘to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,’ if Mr. Tong had received the ‘proper care, treatment and follow up’ at his appointment with Amazon One Medical on December 18, 2023, he would have survived.”
Amazon would not comment on the impending litigation citing patient privacy concerns, instead providing a statement to the press. In it, an Amazon One Medical spokesperson said, “While we are prohibited by law from discussing patient records, we refute claims that a change in the duration of visits or location of a virtual visit has impacted the care provided at Amazon One Medical,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “We care deeply about every patient we serve, and the quality and safety of our care are our highest priorities. We’re proud of our extensive quality and safety measures, and of the health outcomes we help our patients achieve. We take concerns about our care extremely seriously, and we’re committed to continuous improvement.”
According to The Daily Mail, this is the first wrongful death lawsuit brought against Amazon One Medical.
Warning to Clinical Labs, Pathology Groups
Stories like these raise questions as to whether the quality of care delivered by various telehealth services is being sacrificed for the sake of convenience and price transparency. Americans are increasingly living more online. Medical services moved online out of necessity, and many healthcare providers who stayed online have expanded their offerings due to customer demand.
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathologists would be wise to stay informed on this growing trend. These business launches are a warning shot for lab managers and pathology groups to invest time and money becoming more patient/consumer friendly providers with websites that feature price transparency.
Though the cost of clinical laboratory testing is not highlighted in KFF’s annual survey, it is a component in how much employers pay for healthcare plans for their employees
Employers now pay higher health insurance premiums than ever for family coverage. However, because of the current tight labor market, they are generally absorbing much of that increase rather than passing the higher costs on to their workers. That’s one key takeaway from KFF’s 26th annual Employer Health Benefits Survey, which the non-profit published on Oct. 9, 2024. While the report does not comment specifically about the cost of clinical laboratory testing or genetic testing and how they may contribute to rising insurance costs, it stands to reason they are part of growing healthcare costs for corporate health benefits.
The KFF survey found that premiums for family coverage increased 7% in 2024, reaching an average of $25,572. That follows a 7% increase in 2023. “Over the past five years—a period of high inflation (23%) and wage growth (28%)—the cumulative increase in premiums has been similar (24%),” KFF stated in a press release.
However, the amount paid by workers has gone up by less than $300 since 2019. It now stands at an average of $6,296, a total increase of 5% over five years. On average, workers covered 25% of family premium costs in 2024, down from 29% in 2023. Workers with single coverage paid an average of $1,368—16% of the annual premium cost—compared with 17% in 2023.
“Employers are shelling out the equivalent of buying an economy car for every worker every year to pay for family coverage,” KFF President and CEO Drew Altman, PhD (above), said in a press release. “In the tight labor market in recent years, they have not been able to continue offloading costs onto workers who are already struggling with healthcare bills.” Rising costs of clinical laboratory testing is always part of the mix contributing to increased worker insurance premiums for employers. (Photo copyright: KFF.)
HDHP/SO plans, as defined by KFF, “have a deductible of at least $1,000 for single coverage and $2,000 for family coverage and are offered with an HRA [Health Reimbursement Arrangement] or are HSA [health savings account]-qualified.” Point-of-service plans “have lower cost sharing for in-network provider services and do not require a primary care gatekeeper to screen for specialist and hospital visits,” the report states.
Cost Sharing via Deductibles
Average deductible amounts—which KFF identified as another form of cost-sharing—varied depending on the type of plan, employer size, and whether the worker had family or single coverage.
For workers with single coverage, average deductibles across all plan types rose from $1,655 in 2019 to $1,787 in 2024, a total five-year increase of about 8%. The average in 2023 was $1,735. These numbers were for in-network providers.
The report noted that some family plans calculate deductibles using an aggregate structure, “in which all family members’ out-of-pocket expenses count toward the deductible,” whereas others use a separate per-person structure. The report includes breakdowns of average deductibles across all types.
Who Offers the Best Benefits?
In general, the KFF report found that large companies—defined as those with 200 or more workers—tend to offer more generous health benefits than smaller ones. Virtually all large companies (98%) offered health benefits, while slightly more than half of small companies (53%) do so.
Among companies that do offer health benefits, the average deductible at a small firm was $2,575 compared to $1,538 at large firms. Among workers with family coverage, the average contribution toward overall premium costs was $7,947 (33%) at small firms compared to $5,697 (23%) at large firms. Among workers with single coverage, the numbers were $1,429 (16%) at small firms compared to $1,204 (14%) at large firms.
The report also found variations in overall premiums and health benefits across nine different industries. For example, healthcare firms paid the highest premiums for family coverage—an average of $26,864—followed by transportation/communications/utilities at $26,601. Companies in agriculture, mining, and construction paid the lowest premiums, an average of $22,654.
There were wide variations by industry in terms of how many firms offer any health benefits. Among state and local government entities, 83% offered health benefits, followed by transportation/communications/utilities (69%), manufacturing (65%), wholesale (62%), healthcare (58%), and finance (56%). Just 40% of retail businesses and 49% of agriculture/mining/construction businesses offered health benefits.
Health Screening Coverage
The KFF report did not include data about insurance coverage for clinical laboratory services. However, one section did address employer willingness to provide opportunities for health screening.
Among large businesses, 56% offered health risk assessments, in which individuals answer questions about their medical history, lifestyle, and other areas relevant to their health risks. A smaller number (44%) offer biometric screening, which “could include meeting a target body mass index (BMI) or cholesterol level, but not goals related to smoking,” the report said. Only 9% of small businesses offered biometric screening, the report found.
KFF conducted its survey between January and July 2024 among a random selection of public and private employers with at least three workers. The survey excluded federal government entities but included state and local government. A total of 2,142 employers responded.
Inflation during this current administration definitely hit consumers in the health insurance premium pocketbook. At the same time providers raised their own prices making it more expensive for people with HDHPs to come up with the cash required by their annual deductible. While clinical laboratory and genetic testing are not highlighted in KFF’s survey, they certainly play a role in increasing costs to healthcare consumers and are worth considering.
Charges include $1.1 billion in alleged telemedicine and fraudulent clinical laboratory testing
Nearly 200 individuals in 25 states are facing charges for alleged participation in a variety of healthcare frauds, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in a press release. This major enforcement action involves telemedicine and clinical laboratory testing as well as other healthcare schemes. In total, the DOJ is alleging the defendants are responsible for $2.75 billion in intended losses and $1.6 billion in actual losses.
The charges include:
$1.1 billion in alleged telemedicine and clinical laboratory fraud.
As part of the action, the government has seized more than $231 million in assets, including cash, luxury vehicles, and gold.
Monica Cooper, JD (above), a DOJ trial attorney and member of the Texas Strike Force, is one of two attorneys prosecuting the case against Harold Albert “Al” Knowles of Delray Beach, Fla., and Chantal Swart of Boca Raton, Fla., in the DOJ’s latest crackdown on healthcare fraud. Charges against Knowles and Swart include conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and paying/receiving healthcare kickbacks in a $359 million scheme to bill Medicare for medically unnecessary genetic tests at two Houston clinical laboratories. (Photo copyright: US Department of Justice.)
Houston-Area Labs Charged in $359 Million Scheme
In one case, the government charged Florida residents Harold Albert “Al” Knowles and Chantal Swart in a $359 million scheme involving fraudulent Medicare billing for medically unnecessary genetic tests. Knowles owned two Houston-area labs—Bio Choice Laboratories, Inc. and Bios Scientific, LLC—while Swart ran a telemarketing operation. According to DOJ case summaries, the government alleges that Knowles paid kickbacks to Swart to obtain DNA samples and doctors’ orders for tests.
“Knowles, Swart, and others obtained access to tens of thousands of beneficiaries across the United States by targeting them with deceptive telemarketing campaigns,” the indictments allege. “Call center representatives—who were almost never medical professionals—often prompted beneficiaries to disclose their medical conditions and induced them to agree to genetic testing regardless of medical necessity.”
In addition, “Knowles, Swart, and others agreed that Swart and others would pay illegal kickbacks and bribes to purported telemedicine companies to obtain signed doctors’ orders for genetic testing after only a brief telemedicine visit,” the indictment stated. “Knowles and his co-conspirators knew that the purported telemedicine companies’ physicians were rarely, if ever, the beneficiaries’ treating physicians and rarely, if ever, used the genetic testing results in the beneficiaries’ treatment.”
Dallas-Area Labs Charged in $335 Million Scheme
In another case, the federal government charged that the owner of two Dallas-area clinical laboratories engaged in a $335 million Medicare billing scheme.
Keith Gray, owner of Axis Professional Labs, LLC and Kingdom Health Laboratory, LLC, “offered and paid kickbacks to marketers in exchange for their referral to Axis and Kingdom of Medicare beneficiaries’ DNA samples, personally identifiable information (including Medicare numbers), and signed doctors’ orders authorizing medically unnecessary cardio genetic testing,” the government alleged. “As part of the scheme, the marketers engaged other companies to solicit Medicare beneficiaries through telemarketing and to engage in ‘doctor chase,’ i.e., to obtain the identity of beneficiaries’ primary care physicians and pressure them to approve genetic testing orders for patients who purportedly had already been ‘qualified’ for the testing.”
Other Clinical Laboratory and Healthcare Fraud Cases
DOJ attorneys charged the owners of Innovative Genomics, a clinical laboratory in San Antonio, in a $65 million scheme to bill Medicare and the COVID-19 Uninsured Program for “medically unnecessary and otherwise non-reimbursable COVID-19 and genetic testing,” according to the indictment. Also charged were two patient recruiters who allegedly received kickbacks for referring patients.
Richard Abrazi of New York City was charged in a $60 million Medicare billing scheme. Abrazi owned two clinical laboratories: Enigma Management Corp. and Up Services Inc. Both operated as Alliance Laboratories.
“Abrazi and others engaged in a scheme to pay and receive kickbacks and bribes in exchange for laboratory tests, including genetic tests, that Enigma and Up billed to Medicare,” the indictment alleges. “Abrazi and others also allegedly paid and received kickbacks and bribes in exchange for arranging for the ordering of medically unnecessary genetic tests that were ineligible for Medicare reimbursement.”
The DOJ charged Brian Cotugno, of Auburn, Ga., and James Matthew Thorton “Bo” Potter, of Santa Rosa Beach, Fla., in a $20 million Medicare billing scheme. Cotugno, the indictment alleges, sold Medicare Beneficiary Identification Numbers (BINs) to two Alabama laboratories co-owned by Potter.
“The BINs were used to bill Medicare tens of millions of dollars for OTC COVID-19 test kits, many of which had not been requested by the beneficiaries,” the government alleged.
These are only a few of the recent cases the DOJ brought against defendants nationwide for healthcare, telemedicine, and clinical laboratory fraud. Both Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report have covered these ongoing investigations for years. And we will continue to do so because it’s important that lab managers and pathology group leaders are aware of the lengths to which the DOJ is pursuing bad actors in healthcare.
Federal prosecutors allege that this nurse practitioner ordered more genetic tests for Medicare beneficiaries than any other provider during 2020
Cases of Medicare fraud involving clinical laboratory testing continue to be prosecuted by the federal Department of Justice. A jury in Miami recently convicted a nurse practitioner (NP) for her role in a massive Medicare fraud scheme for millions of dollars in medically unnecessary genetic testing and durable medical equipment. She faces 75 years in prison when sentenced in December.
In their indictment, federal prosecutors alleged that from August 2018 through June 2021 Elizabeth Mercedes Hernandez, NP, of Homestead, Florida, worked with more than eight telemedicine and marketing companies to sign “thousands of orders for medically unnecessary orthotic braces and genetic tests, resulting in fraudulent Medicare billings in excess of $200 million,” according to a US Department of Justice (DOJ) news release announcing the conviction.
“Hernandez personally pocketed approximately $1.6 million in the scheme, which she used to purchase expensive cars, jewelry, home renovations, and travel,” the press release noted.
Hernandez was indicted in April 2022 as part of a larger DOJ crackdown on healthcare fraud related to the COVID-19 outbreak.
“Throughout the pandemic, we have seen trusted medical professionals orchestrate and carry out egregious crimes against their patients all for financial gain,” said Assistant Director Luis Quesada (above) of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, in a DOJ press release. Clinical laboratory managers would be wise to monitor these Medicare fraud cases. (Photo copyright: Federal Bureau of Investigation.)
Nurse Practitioner Received Kickbacks and Bribes
Federal prosecutors alleged that the scheme involved telemarketing companies that contacted Medicare beneficiaries and persuaded them to request genetic tests and orthotic braces. Hernandez, they said, then signed pre-filled orders, “attesting that she had examined or treated the patients,” according to the DOJ news release.
In many cases, Hernandez had not even spoken with the patients, prosecutors said. “She then billed Medicare as though she were conducting complex office visits with these patients, and routinely billed more than 24 hours of ‘office visits’ in a single day,” according to the news release.
In total, Hernandez submitted fraudulent claims of approximately $119 million for genetic tests, the indictment stated. “In 2020, Hernandez ordered more cancer genetic (CGx) tests for Medicare beneficiaries than any other provider in the nation, including oncologists and geneticists,” according to the news release.
The indictment noted that because CGx tests do not diagnose cancer, Medicare covers them only “in limited circumstances, such as when a beneficiary had cancer and the beneficiary’s treating physician deemed such testing necessary for the beneficiary’s treatment of that cancer. Medicare did not cover CGx testing for beneficiaries who did not have cancer or lacked symptoms of cancer.”
In exchange for signing the orders, Hernandez received kickbacks and bribes from companies that claimed to be in the telemedicine business, the indictment stated.
“These healthcare fraud abuses erode the integrity and trust patients have with those in the healthcare industry … the FBI, working in coordination with our law enforcement partners, will continue to investigate and pursue those who exploit the integrity of the healthcare industry for profit,” said Assistant Director Luis Quesada of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Criminal Investigative Division, in the DOJ press release.
Conspirators Took Advantage of COVID-19 Pandemic
Prosecutors alleged that as part of the scheme, she and her co-conspirators took advantage of temporary amendments to rules involving telehealth services—changes that were enacted by Medicare in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The indictment noted that prior to the pandemic, Medicare covered expenses for telehealth services only if the beneficiary “was located in a rural or health professional shortage area,” and “was in a practitioner’s office or a specified medical facility—not at a beneficiary’s home.”
But in response to the pandemic, Medicare relaxed the restrictions to allow coverage “even if the beneficiary was not located in a rural area or a health professional shortage area, and even if the telehealth services were furnished to beneficiaries in their home.”
Hernandez was convicted of:
One count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and wire fraud.
Four counts of healthcare fraud.
Three counts of making false statements.
Medscape noted that she was acquitted of two counts of healthcare fraud. The trial lasted six days, Medscape reported.
Hernandez’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for Dec. 14.
Co-Conspirators Plead Guilty
Two other co-conspirators in the case, Leonel Palatnik and Michael Stein, had previously pleaded guilty and received sentences, the Miami Herald reported.
Palatnik was co-owner of Panda Conservation Group LLC, which operated two genetic testing laboratories in Florida. Prosecutors said that Palatnik paid kickbacks to Stein, owner of 1523 Holdings LLC, “in exchange for his work arranging for telemedicine providers to authorize genetic testing orders for Panda’s laboratories,” according to a DOJ press release. The kickbacks were disguised as payments for information technology (IT) and consulting services.
“1523 Holdings then exploited temporary amendments to telehealth restrictions enacted during the pandemic by offering telehealth providers access to Medicare beneficiaries for whom they could bill consultations,” the press release states. “In exchange, these providers agreed to refer beneficiaries to Panda’s laboratories for expensive and medically unnecessary cancer and cardiovascular genetic testing.”
Palatnik pleaded guilty to his role in the kickback scheme in August 2021 and was sentenced to 82 months in prison, a DOJ press release states.
Stein pleaded guilty in April and was sentenced to five years in prison, the Miami Herald reported. He was also ordered to pay $63.3 million in restitution.
These federal cases involving clinical laboratory genetic testing and other tests and medical equipment indicate a commitment on the DOJ’s part to continue cracking down on healthcare fraud.
This is good news for clinical laboratories that already perform medical testing for telehealth providers and an opportunity for medical labs that do not, it is an opportunity to do so
Telemedicine visits have become commonplace since the arrival of COVID-19. Before the pandemic, telehealth was primarily used to give remote patients access to quality healthcare providers. But three years later both patients and physicians are becoming increasingly comfortable with virtual office visits, especially among Millennial and Gen Z patients and doctors.
Now, a recent study by the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn Medicine) suggests that there could be a significant financial advantage for hospitals that conduct telemedicine. This would be a boon to clinical laboratories that perform medical testing for telemedicine providers.
According to Digital Health News, in July 2017 Penn Medicine launched a 24/7/365 copayment-free telemedicine program for its employees called Penn Medicine OnDemand. To engage with a telemedicine provider, patients must have a smartphone or tablet with a front-facing camera and updated operating system.
Telemedicine Visits Cost Less than In-Office Doctor Appointments
An analysis of the OnDemand program’s data collected from its inception through the end of 2019 found that the telemedicine appointment per-visit cost averaged around $380, whereas the cost of an in-person visit at an emergency department, primary care office, or urgent care clinic averaged around $493.
Typically, Penn Medicine’s employees used the telemedicine program for common, low risk health complaints. Healthcare conditions that many patients might otherwise not seek treatment for if an in-office visit was inconvenient.
“The data we analyzed pre-date the pandemic. It was a time when people were just putting a toe in the water and wondering, ‘Let me see if telemedicine could treat my needs,’” Krisda Chaiyachati MD, an internal medicine physician and Adjunct Assistant Professor at Penn Medicine, told Digital Health News. Chaiyachati lead the research team that conducted the telemedicine study.
“These days, people seem willing to jump in for an appropriate set of conditions,” he added. “The good news is that we made care easier while saving money, and we think the savings could be higher in the future.”
Chaiyachati and his colleagues found that telemedicine can save employers healthcare costs without sacrificing quality of care.
“The conditions most often handled by OnDemand are low acuity—non-urgent or semi-urgent issues like respiratory infections, sinus infections, and allergies—but incredibly common, so any kind of cost reduction can make a huge difference for controlling employee benefit costs,” Krisda Chaiyachati MD (above), a Penn Medicine physician and the study’s lead researcher, told Digital Health News. Clinical laboratories that already perform testing for telemedicine providers may see an increase in test orders once hospitals learn of the costs savings highlighted in the Penn Medicine study. (Photo copyright: Penn Medicine.)
Telemedicine on the Rise
The idea is not new. In late 2018, Planned Parenthood launched the Planned Parenthood Direct mobile app in New York State. The app provides New York patients with access to birth control, emergency contraception, and UTI treatment with no in-person visit required.
The program has since expanded across the country. Users of the app can connect with a physician to go over symptoms/needs, and the be sent a prescription within a business day to the pharmacy of their choice.
The concept is similar to Penn Medicine OnDemand, which gives patients 24/7 year around access to treatment for common and low-acuity medical issues in a convenient, virtual process.
Telemedicine was on the rise in other parts of the healthcare industry before the pandemic. According to “The State of Telehealth Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic” published by Julia Shaver, MD, Kaiser Permanente, in the journal Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, 76% of US hospital systems had utilized some form of telemedicine by 2018. This rate grew exponentially while the healthcare system had to navigate a world with COVID-19 on the rise.
And, apparently, quality of care does not suffer when moved from in-person to virtual settings. Two studies conducted by The University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) found telemedicine to be effective and that “common concerns about telemedicine don’t hold up to scrutiny,” according a news release.
In her New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) paper on the studies, Kathleen Fear, PhD, URMC’s Director of Data Analytics, Health Lab, and her co-authors, wrote: “Three beliefs—that telemedicine will reduce access for the most vulnerable patients; that reimbursement parity will encourage overuse of telemedicine; and that telemedicine is an ineffective way to care for patients—have for years formed the backbone of opposition to the widespread adoption of telemedicine.”
However, URMC’s study found the opposite to be true. The NEJM authors wrote, “there is no support for these three common notions about telemedicine. At URMC, the most vulnerable patients had the highest uptake of telemedicine; not only did they complete a disproportionate share of telemedicine visits, but they also did so with lower no-show and cancellation rates. It is clear that … telemedicine makes medical care more accessible to patients who previously have experienced substantial barriers to care.
“Importantly, this access does not come at the expense of effectiveness. Providers do not order excessive amounts of additional testing to make up for the limitations of virtual visits. Patients do not end up in the ER or the hospital because their needs are not met during a telemedicine visit, and they also do not end up requiring additional in-person follow-up visits to supplement their telemedicine visit,” the NEJM authors concluded.
“Not only did our most vulnerable patients not get left behind—they were among those engaging the most with, and benefiting the most from, telemedicine services. We did not see worse outcomes or increased costs, or patients needing an increased amount of in-person follow up. Nor did we find evidence of overuse. This is good care, and it is equitable care for vulnerable populations,” Fear said in the news release.
“For patients, the message is clear and reassuring: Telemedicine is an effective and efficient way of receiving many kinds of healthcare,” she added.
Opportunities for Clinical Laboratories
Dark Daily has covered the fast growing world of telemedicine in many ebriefs over the years.
As telemedicine broadens its reach across the healthcare world, clinical laboratories and pathology groups would be wise to seek collaboration with health plans and providers of telemedicine to figure out where sample collection and testing fits into this new virtual healthcare space.
