Posts

The Importance of “Soft” Value in Virtual Care ROI

Measuring return on investment – whether that comes from realized cost savings, direct revenue or long-term revenue – is important when building a business case for virtual care. If you want to get into that, we’ve got plenty of material for you (here, here and here).

A lot of time is spent discussing hard numbers with customers, so it’s easy to lose track of the softer side of ROI – what’s known as “blue sky” or “soft” value. While more difficult to measure and quantify, the softer side of ROI is just as important for organizational success. Soft value includes things like market perception, brand reputation, employee engagement and customer (or patient, in this case) satisfaction.

Virtual Care and Soft Value

So, what does that have to do with virtual care? A lot. Virtual care is a key component in strategies that impact those less measurable, but still incredibly important, value drivers, including brand positioning, provider satisfaction, and patient satisfaction and experience.

Brand Position

When I’m speaking with customers, they often tell us that how their brand is perceived in the marketplace is of enormous importance to them. A well-publicized virtual care offering can help healthcare organizations position themselves as patient-friendly, convenience-focused, and technologically savvy. With a recent survey of patients finding that more than half of millennials would choose a provider who offers virtual care over one who does not, the brand impact of a virtual care solution can be the difference between patient acquisition and patient attrition.

Provider Satisfaction

In a world where provider burnout is front and center, finding ways to maximize provider satisfaction is critical. Providers remain skeptical about virtual care and adoption is slow—just 18% of physicians are interested in adding virtual visits to their practice, according to a recent Deloitte survey. However, patients are increasingly interested in virtual visits, with 57% indicating interest in online doctor visits, according to the same survey. Finding virtual tools to facilitate patient care that don’t add to providers’ workloads is critical. Virtual care, specifically store-and-forward or asynchronous modes of care, can lighten providers’ workloads while still enabling them to care for more patients. At Zipnosis, we’ve seen customers with provider satisfaction rates as high as 100% (top 3 box on a scale of 1-10).

“Zipnosis allows me to provide excellent treatment for patients with low-acuity health issues that can safely be managed without an in-person provider visit.”

-Virtual Care Provider

Patient Satisfaction and Experience

Spoiler Alert: In our soon-to-be-released On-Demand Virtual Care Survey Report, our team found that patient satisfaction was the most selected success metric across all respondents. Moreover, looking at the virtual care program goals, patient experience and satisfaction were the most selected reasons for launching a virtual care service. By launching virtual care health systems are demonstrating commitment to making healthcare work for their patients, instead of making patients work to get healthcare. This is vital in enhancing patients’ experience with the health system and their overall satisfaction.

Maximizing Value from Virtual Care

One of the things we tell customers is that their virtual care service is only as good as the marketing behind it. Realizing the benefits of soft value – as with hard ROI – means spreading the word about virtual care, with the greatest success coming to health systems that combine seasonal marketing campaigns with providers recommending the service to their patients in-clinic.

After all, it’s impossible for patients to experience the convenience and satisfaction of a virtual encounter if they don’t know it’s available. Your health system’s brand won’t be known as an innovative leader in care delivery if the marketplace isn’t aware of the innovative services on offer. And, your physicians, NPs and PAs won’t find satisfaction with a platform that their patients aren’t using.

Soft value is a real, if less tangible, benefit of launching virtual care. Health systems that want to build their brand, enhance patient experience, and support provide satisfaction would be wise to consider adding virtual care or leveraging their existing service to meet their goals.

What’s in a Name? Online Healthcare Terminology and Why it Matters

We are at a critical inflection point in healthcare delivery. This inflection point is front and center for online healthcare as traditional telemedicine evolves into virtual care. It is important that the industry adopts the right vernacular to define and capture the shift, just a biology has allowed us to classify species and their evolution. To that end, I propose we clarify and define the terms we use to describe the new online care delivery models. Specifically, “telemedicine” and “virtual care.”

Over the past couple months, I’ve shared some thoughts on how telemedicine and virtual care differ. To recap:

Telemedicine = Testing; Virtual Care = Viable

For nearly 70 years, we have been testing with telemedicine. They have been vital tests of technology, payment models, clinical quality, patient satisfaction and all the bits and pieces between each of those components.

Telemedicine = Analog; Virtual Care = Digital

Telemedicine was developed when cathode ray tubes were en vogue. Telemedicine providers are not technology companies, but service companies that use technology to assist with care delivery. It’s a model that fits the pants healthcare has worn for the past 70 years, but is woefully ill-fitting for the new models.

Virtual Care has digital DNA. These companies are technology providers who facilitate care delivery on their platforms. They assume healthcare is going to be dominated by data and devices.

Telemedicine = Transactions; Virtual Care = Value

Telemedicine is all about handling healthcare transactions for a fee. Each time the phone rings or the video conference queues up, a charge is initiated. Telemedicine is anchored in fee-for-service payment models.

Virtual Care is required for value-based care payment models. These companies push the transactional cost of care as close to $0.00 as possible while unlocking new value streams off their platforms and data.

What about other terms like mHealth, connected care, digital medicine or digital health? I won’t spend much time here digesting, but I throw out my gut reaction:

mHealth: The “m” already feels like shag carpet. It was cool for a moment but no body wants to live with it.

Connected Care: It sounds like horse without a hitching post. What are we connecting to – proprietary data sets companies may not want to share? Facebook? Instagram? The Apple Watch only the affluent can afford?

Digital Medicine: It sounds antiseptic; cold, clinical and focused on data not care.

Digital Health: I actually kind of like this one, but it feels a little too broad for our purposes. In my mind digital health encompasses all the electronic tools that patients and providers use to facilitate care and wellness.

So, there you have it. My 12 cents on how and why we need to segment the market between virtual care and telemedicine. It’s time turn our eyes to the next 20 years, thank the telemedicine times and venture towards virtual care.