Advocates for telemedicine policy that includes mid-level providers will likely face opposition. Three likely arguments will be: (1) patients aren’t interested in telemedicine, (2) telemedicine should not be allowed replace in-person visits and (3) if telemedicine policy does change, there is no need to include mid-level providers. Below is a sample evidence-based response to the first argument.
Argument: Patients don’t want to use telemedicine services
Response: Telemedicine patients have reported good acceptance rates and satisfaction with the technologies and treatment via telemedicine has been proven to be efficacious (Whitten, 2007). Additionally, a recent Price Waterhouse Cooper Study found that 50% of people surveyed stated that they “would seek healthcare through online consultations” and that “email consultations were the most preferred method”, followed by “Webcam/video consultations (Thompson et al, 2011).”
Thompson, M., Isgur, B., & Foong, S. (2011) Focusing on Healthcare Value, Price WaterHouse Cooper, Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/us/en/view/issue-12/focusing-on-healthcare-value.jhtml
Whitten, P. & Buis, L. (2007) Private Payer Reimbursement for Telemedicine Services in the United States, Telemedicine and e-Health, Vol. 13, DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2006.0028