VA Telemedicine: An Analysis of Cost and Time Savings

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system provides beneficiary travel reimbursement ("travel pay") to qualifying patients for traveling to appointments. Travel pay is a large expense for the VA and hence the U.S. Government, projected to cost nearly $1 billion in 2015. Telemedicine in the VA system has the potential to save money by reducing patient travel and thus the amount of travel pay disbursed. In this study, we quantify this savings and also report trends in VA telemedicine volumes over time.

Related collections

Most cited references 16

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions.

Pamela S Whitten, Alan Haycox, P Whitten … (2002)

To systematically review cost benefit studies of telemedicine. Systematic review of English language, peer reviewed journal articles. Searches of Medline, Embase, ISI citation indexes, and database of Telemedicine Information Exchange. STUDIES SELECTED: 55 of 612 identified articles that presented actual cost benefit data. Scientific quality of reports assessed by use of an established instrument for adjudicating on the quality of economic analyses. 557 articles without cost data categorised by topic. 55 articles with data initially categorised by cost variables employed in the study and conclusions. Only 24/55 (44%) studies met quality criteria justifying inclusion in a quality review. 20/24 (83%) restricted to simple cost comparisons. No study used cost utility analysis, the conventional means of establishing the "value for money" that a therapeutic intervention represents. Only 7/24 (29%) studies attempted to explore the level of utilisation that would be needed for telemedicine services to compare favourably with traditionally organised health care. None addressed this question in sufficient detail to adequately answer it. 15/24 (62.5%) of articles reviewed here provided no details of sensitivity analysis, a method all economic analyses should incorporate. There is no good evidence that telemedicine is a cost effective means of delivering health care.

0 comments Cited 110 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth services using real time video communication

Victoria Wade, Jonathan Karnon, Adam G Elshaug … (2010)

Background Telehealth is the delivery of health care at a distance, using information and communication technology. The major rationales for its introduction have been to decrease costs, improve efficiency and increase access in health care delivery. This systematic review assesses the economic value of one type of telehealth delivery - synchronous or real time video communication - rather than examining a heterogeneous range of delivery modes as has been the case with previous reviews in this area. Methods A systematic search was undertaken for economic analyses of the clinical use of telehealth, ending in June 2009. Studies with patient outcome data and a non-telehealth comparator were included. Cost analyses, non-comparative studies and those where patient satisfaction was the only health outcome were excluded. Results 36 articles met the inclusion criteria. 22(61%) of the studies found telehealth to be less costly than the non-telehealth alternative, 11(31%) found greater costs and 3 (9%) gave the same or mixed results. 23 of the studies took the perspective of the health services, 12 were societal, and one was from the patient perspective. In three studies of telehealth to rural areas, the health services paid more for telehealth, but due to savings in patient travel, the societal perspective demonstrated cost savings. In regard to health outcomes, 12 (33%) of studies found improved health outcomes, 21 (58%) found outcomes were not significantly different, 2(6%) found that telehealth was less effective, and 1 (3%) found outcomes differed according to patient group. The organisational model of care was more important in determining the value of the service than the clinical discipline, the type of technology, or the date of the study. Conclusion Delivery of health services by real time video communication was cost-effective for home care and access to on-call hospital specialists, showed mixed results for rural service delivery, and was not cost-effective for local delivery of services between hospitals and primary care.

0 comments Cited 102 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Cost savings from a telemedicine model of care in northern Queensland, Australia.

Darshit Thaker, Richard Monypenny, Ian Olver … (2013)

To conduct a cost analysis of a telemedicine model for cancer care (teleoncology) in northern Queensland, Australia, compared with the usual model of care from the perspective of the Townsville and other participating hospital and health services. Retrospective cost-savings analysis; and a one-way sensitivity analysis performed to test the robustness of findings in net savings. Records of all patients managed by means of teleoncology at the Townsville Cancer Centre (TCC) and its six rural satellite centres in northern Queensland, Australia between 1 March 2007 and 30 November 2011. Costs for set-up and staffing to manage the service, and savings from avoidance of travel expenses for specialist oncologists, patients and their escorts, and for aeromedical retrievals. There were 605 teleoncology consultations with 147 patients over 56 months, at a total cost of $442 276. The cost for project establishment was $36 000, equipment/maintenance was $143 271, and staff was $261 520. The estimated travel expense avoided was $762 394; this figure included the costs of travel for patients and escorts of $658 760, aeromedical retrievals of $52 400 and travel for specialists of $47 634, as well as an estimate of accommodation costs for a proportion of patients of $3600. This resulted in a net saving of $320 118. Costs would have to increase by 72% to negate the savings. The teleoncology model of care at the TCC resulted in net savings, mainly due to avoidance of travel costs. Such savings could be redirected to enhancing rural resources and service capabilities. This teleoncology model is applicable to geographically distant areas requiring lengthy travel.