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.
About the Author
Jon Pearce is co-founder and CEO of Zipnosis. As a healthcare entrepreneur with experience in med-tech start-ups and as a venture analyst, he is focused on leveraging the power of technology to improve the way health systems engage with and treat their patients.