By Karen Minich Pourshadi
Health Leaders Media
Originally published July 19, 2012
Here are some excerpts:
The passing of the years has softened resistance by patients to using this approach. Patients are now willing to forego an in-person visit with the doctor in order to get the care they need swiftly, without having to travel, and in some instances at a lower cost. Moreover, the reimbursement environment is changing. Whereas at one time payers rejected the notion of reimbursing e-health, now more are willing to pay for it. Plus, legislators nationwide are creating state laws requiring payers to reimburse for these services, though in many instances payers are doing so irrespective of mandate.
"Telemedicine can lower healthcare costs by reducing avoidable hospital visits and providing regular access to care in remote parts of the state, and it's more convenient for patients," says Georgia Partnership for TeleHealth CEO Paula Guy. The nonprofit telehealth provider works with more than 350 partners and 175 specialists and other healthcare providers and has handled some 40,000 patient encounters as of 2011.
(cut)
GPT has also placed telehealth into nursing homes. In 2011, using telehealth resulted in 160 ED visits being avoided, saving approximately $480,000 in ED cost, Guy says, "In the past, these older patients may have just called for an ambulance when they had a problem. But now patients can be seen by a doctor without an expensive ambulance trip to the ED. Plus they can use it for routine access to care, and by getting that they're less likely to end up in the hospital as frequently," Guy says.
Telehealth visits saved 310 miles and nearly six hours of traveling on average, according to a study by Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, a three-hospital system for children and teens. CHA reviewed 609 appointments over a nine-month period and noted that approximately 86% of patients would have missed school and more than 80% of parents would have missed a full day of work to go to the city for an in-office visit, according to data published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Additionally, Guy explains that out of the 40,009 telehealth visits GPT tracked, a random sample showed an average savings of patient travel time of 124 miles per encounter and nearly $762,027 in fuel alone.
The entire article is here.
Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care
Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy
Showing posts with label Patient Access. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patient Access. Show all posts
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Inviting Patients to Read Their Doctors' Notes
Patient and Physician
Surveys
Original Research:
Improving Patient Care
Annals of Internal
Medicine
By Jan Walker, RN, MBA;
Suzanne G. Leveille, PhD, RN; Long Ngo, PhD; Elisabeth Vodicka, BA; Jonathan D.
Darer, MD, MPH; Shireesha Dhanireddy, MD; Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH; Henry J.
Feldman, MD; Marc J. Lichtenfeld, PhD; Natalia Oster, MPH; James D. Ralston,
MD, MPH; Stephen E. Ross, MD; and Tom Delbanco, MD
Abstract
Background: Little is
known about what primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients would expect if
patients were invited to read their doctors' office notes.
Objective: To explore
attitudes toward potential benefits or harms if PCPs offered patients ready
access to visit notes.
Design: The PCPs and
patients completed surveys before joining a voluntary program that provided
electronic links to doctors' notes.
Setting: Primary care
practices in 3 U.S. states.
Participants: Participating
and nonparticipating PCPs and adult patients at primary care practices in
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
Measurements: Doctors'
and patients' attitudes toward and expectations of open visit notes, their
ideas about the potential benefits and risks, and demographic characteristics.
Results: 110 of 114
participating PCPs (96%), 63 of 140 nonparticipating PCPs (45%), and
37 856 of 90 203 patients (42%) completed surveys. Overall, 69% to
81% of participating PCPs across the 3 sites and 92% to 97% of patients thought
open visit notes were a good idea, compared with 16% to 33% of nonparticipating
PCPs. Similarly, participating PCPs and patients generally agreed with
statements about potential benefits of open visit notes, whereas
nonparticipating PCPs were less likely to agree. Among participating PCPs, 74%
to 92% anticipated improved communication and patient education, in contrast to
45% to 67% of nonparticipating PCPs. More than one half of participating PCPs
(50% to 58%) and most nonparticipating PCPs (88% to 92%) expected that open
visit notes would result in greater worry among patients; far fewer patients
concurred (12% to 16%). Thirty-six percent to 50% of participating PCPs and 83%
to 84% of nonparticipating PCPs anticipated more patient questions between
visits. Few PCPs (0% to 33%) anticipated increased risk for lawsuits. Patient
enthusiasm extended across age, education, and health status, and 22%
anticipated sharing visit notes with others, including other doctors.
Limitations: Access
to electronic patient portals is not widespread, and participation was limited
to patients using such portals. Response rates were higher among participating
PCPs than nonparticipating PCPs; many participating PCPs had small patient
panels.
Conclusion: Among
PCPs, opinions about open visit notes varied widely in terms of predicting the
effect on their practices and benefits for patients. In contrast, patients
expressed considerable enthusiasm and few fears, anticipating both improved
understanding and more involvement in care. Sharing visit notes has broad
implications for quality of care, privacy, and shared accountability.
Primary Funding Source: The
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Pioneer Portfolio, Drane Family Fund, and
Koplow Charitable Foundation.
The entire story is here.
Thanks to Ken Pope for
this story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)