Economic evaluation of interactive teledermatology compared with conventional care

April W. Armstrong, David J. Dorer, Nancy E. Lugn, Joseph C. Kvedar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Teledermatology offers a means of providing specialist care to underserved patients. The objectives of this study were to compare the costs of interactive teledermatology with conventional care, and to evaluate from a healthcare provider perspective whether interactive teledermatology is economically viable in the northeastern region of the United States. We studied the interactive teledermatology practice at Nantucket Cottage Hospital on Nantucket Island and the ambulatory clinics at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. The cost-minimization analysis compared the costs of an interactive teledermatology practice with that of a face-to-face dermatology clinic. One-way sensitivity analyses examined the effect of varying the costs of technology, physician compensation, or clinic space on the overall cost of interactive teledermatology. We also assessed the economic viability of the interactive teledermatology practice by comparing the operating costs with reimbursements. The total hourly operating costs for the interactive teledermatology practice on Nantucket Island and the face-to-face clinic in Boston were $274 and $346, respectively. Three separate one-way sensitivity analyses showed that, for the cost of the teledermatology practice to equal that of the conventional clinic, the cost of teledermatology technology could increase by 9.3-fold, dermatologists working at the teledermatology practice could be compensated up to $197 an hour, or the cost of teledermatology clinic space could reach $57 an hour. Our analysis also showed that the hourly reimbursement for the teledermatology practice was $487, which exceeded its hourly operating cost of $274. The cost of operating an interactive teledermatology practice in a remote region may be less than that of a conventional clinic in a nearby urban center in the northeastern area of the United States. From a healthcare provider perspective, interactive teledermatology can be an economically viable means of providing dermatological care to remote regions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)91-99
Number of pages9
JournalTelemedicine Journal and e-Health
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Economics
Costs
Operating costs
New England
Islands
Dermatology
Health Personnel
Technology
Vulnerable Populations
Compensation and Redress
General Hospitals
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Bioengineering
  • Media Technology
  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Economic evaluation of interactive teledermatology compared with conventional care. / Armstrong, April W.; Dorer, David J.; Lugn, Nancy E.; Kvedar, Joseph C.

In: Telemedicine Journal and e-Health, Vol. 13, No. 2, 04.2007, p. 91-99.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Armstrong, April W. ; Dorer, David J. ; Lugn, Nancy E. ; Kvedar, Joseph C. / Economic evaluation of interactive teledermatology compared with conventional care. In: Telemedicine Journal and e-Health. 2007 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 91-99.
@article{65f06513aebd4b099a7012e876f9e49a,
title = "Economic evaluation of interactive teledermatology compared with conventional care",
abstract = "Teledermatology offers a means of providing specialist care to underserved patients. The objectives of this study were to compare the costs of interactive teledermatology with conventional care, and to evaluate from a healthcare provider perspective whether interactive teledermatology is economically viable in the northeastern region of the United States. We studied the interactive teledermatology practice at Nantucket Cottage Hospital on Nantucket Island and the ambulatory clinics at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. The cost-minimization analysis compared the costs of an interactive teledermatology practice with that of a face-to-face dermatology clinic. One-way sensitivity analyses examined the effect of varying the costs of technology, physician compensation, or clinic space on the overall cost of interactive teledermatology. We also assessed the economic viability of the interactive teledermatology practice by comparing the operating costs with reimbursements. The total hourly operating costs for the interactive teledermatology practice on Nantucket Island and the face-to-face clinic in Boston were $274 and $346, respectively. Three separate one-way sensitivity analyses showed that, for the cost of the teledermatology practice to equal that of the conventional clinic, the cost of teledermatology technology could increase by 9.3-fold, dermatologists working at the teledermatology practice could be compensated up to $197 an hour, or the cost of teledermatology clinic space could reach $57 an hour. Our analysis also showed that the hourly reimbursement for the teledermatology practice was $487, which exceeded its hourly operating cost of $274. The cost of operating an interactive teledermatology practice in a remote region may be less than that of a conventional clinic in a nearby urban center in the northeastern area of the United States. From a healthcare provider perspective, interactive teledermatology can be an economically viable means of providing dermatological care to remote regions.",
author = "Armstrong, {April W.} and Dorer, {David J.} and Lugn, {Nancy E.} and Kvedar, {Joseph C.}",
year = "2007",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1089/tmj.2006.0035",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "91--99",
journal = "Telemedicine and e-Health",
issn = "1530-5627",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic evaluation of interactive teledermatology compared with conventional care

AU - Armstrong, April W.

AU - Dorer, David J.

AU - Lugn, Nancy E.

AU - Kvedar, Joseph C.

PY - 2007/4

Y1 - 2007/4

N2 - Teledermatology offers a means of providing specialist care to underserved patients. The objectives of this study were to compare the costs of interactive teledermatology with conventional care, and to evaluate from a healthcare provider perspective whether interactive teledermatology is economically viable in the northeastern region of the United States. We studied the interactive teledermatology practice at Nantucket Cottage Hospital on Nantucket Island and the ambulatory clinics at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. The cost-minimization analysis compared the costs of an interactive teledermatology practice with that of a face-to-face dermatology clinic. One-way sensitivity analyses examined the effect of varying the costs of technology, physician compensation, or clinic space on the overall cost of interactive teledermatology. We also assessed the economic viability of the interactive teledermatology practice by comparing the operating costs with reimbursements. The total hourly operating costs for the interactive teledermatology practice on Nantucket Island and the face-to-face clinic in Boston were $274 and $346, respectively. Three separate one-way sensitivity analyses showed that, for the cost of the teledermatology practice to equal that of the conventional clinic, the cost of teledermatology technology could increase by 9.3-fold, dermatologists working at the teledermatology practice could be compensated up to $197 an hour, or the cost of teledermatology clinic space could reach $57 an hour. Our analysis also showed that the hourly reimbursement for the teledermatology practice was $487, which exceeded its hourly operating cost of $274. The cost of operating an interactive teledermatology practice in a remote region may be less than that of a conventional clinic in a nearby urban center in the northeastern area of the United States. From a healthcare provider perspective, interactive teledermatology can be an economically viable means of providing dermatological care to remote regions.

AB - Teledermatology offers a means of providing specialist care to underserved patients. The objectives of this study were to compare the costs of interactive teledermatology with conventional care, and to evaluate from a healthcare provider perspective whether interactive teledermatology is economically viable in the northeastern region of the United States. We studied the interactive teledermatology practice at Nantucket Cottage Hospital on Nantucket Island and the ambulatory clinics at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. The cost-minimization analysis compared the costs of an interactive teledermatology practice with that of a face-to-face dermatology clinic. One-way sensitivity analyses examined the effect of varying the costs of technology, physician compensation, or clinic space on the overall cost of interactive teledermatology. We also assessed the economic viability of the interactive teledermatology practice by comparing the operating costs with reimbursements. The total hourly operating costs for the interactive teledermatology practice on Nantucket Island and the face-to-face clinic in Boston were $274 and $346, respectively. Three separate one-way sensitivity analyses showed that, for the cost of the teledermatology practice to equal that of the conventional clinic, the cost of teledermatology technology could increase by 9.3-fold, dermatologists working at the teledermatology practice could be compensated up to $197 an hour, or the cost of teledermatology clinic space could reach $57 an hour. Our analysis also showed that the hourly reimbursement for the teledermatology practice was $487, which exceeded its hourly operating cost of $274. The cost of operating an interactive teledermatology practice in a remote region may be less than that of a conventional clinic in a nearby urban center in the northeastern area of the United States. From a healthcare provider perspective, interactive teledermatology can be an economically viable means of providing dermatological care to remote regions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248143550&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34248143550&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/tmj.2006.0035

DO - 10.1089/tmj.2006.0035

M3 - Article

C2 - 17489695

AN - SCOPUS:34248143550

VL - 13

SP - 91

EP - 99

JO - Telemedicine and e-Health

JF - Telemedicine and e-Health

SN - 1530-5627

IS - 2

ER -