A proposed framework for economic evaluation of telemedicine.

J E Sisk, J H Sanders
{"title":"A proposed framework for economic evaluation of telemedicine.","authors":"J E Sisk,&nbsp;J H Sanders","doi":"10.1089/tmj.1.1998.4.31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Economic evaluation of telemedicine compares the costs and other consequences of delivering specific services through telemedicine vs. alternative means. Cost-effectiveness analysis, the most common method used for health issues, helps to assess whether the expected health benefits are worth the investment. Telemedicine raises particular challenges for evaluators: a telemedicine system may have multiple uses and joint costs that are difficult to apportion to one service, the existence of a system may lead to expanded indications for use, and technological change may rapidly make an evaluation outdated. Public and private regulation and payment may affect the diffusion of telemedicine. Uncertainty surrounds the policy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is still formulating its position. Changes are underway in policies on licensure and credentialing of clinicians, which have traditionally been done by state and by site, to reflect the fact that telemedicine services may cross these regional boundaries. Lack of insurance coverage for telemedicine services has been considered an impediment to adoption with fee-for-service payment. Under capitation payment and fixed budgets, however, providers have financial incentives to use the most efficient method to deliver services, and these arrangements would favor telemedicine if it is the less costly alternative. If telemedicine were most costly and the health benefits worth the cost, monitoring might be needed to ensure the quality of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":79734,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine journal : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association","volume":"4 1","pages":"31-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/tmj.1.1998.4.31","citationCount":"50","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telemedicine journal : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.1.1998.4.31","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 50

Abstract

Economic evaluation of telemedicine compares the costs and other consequences of delivering specific services through telemedicine vs. alternative means. Cost-effectiveness analysis, the most common method used for health issues, helps to assess whether the expected health benefits are worth the investment. Telemedicine raises particular challenges for evaluators: a telemedicine system may have multiple uses and joint costs that are difficult to apportion to one service, the existence of a system may lead to expanded indications for use, and technological change may rapidly make an evaluation outdated. Public and private regulation and payment may affect the diffusion of telemedicine. Uncertainty surrounds the policy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is still formulating its position. Changes are underway in policies on licensure and credentialing of clinicians, which have traditionally been done by state and by site, to reflect the fact that telemedicine services may cross these regional boundaries. Lack of insurance coverage for telemedicine services has been considered an impediment to adoption with fee-for-service payment. Under capitation payment and fixed budgets, however, providers have financial incentives to use the most efficient method to deliver services, and these arrangements would favor telemedicine if it is the less costly alternative. If telemedicine were most costly and the health benefits worth the cost, monitoring might be needed to ensure the quality of care.

远程医疗的经济评估框架。
远程医疗的经济评估比较了通过远程医疗与替代手段提供特定服务的成本和其他后果。成本效益分析是用于健康问题的最常用方法,它有助于评估预期的健康效益是否值得投资。远程医疗给评估人员提出了特别的挑战:远程医疗系统可能有多种用途,联合成本难以分摊到一项服务上,系统的存在可能导致使用适应症的扩大,技术变革可能迅速使评估过时。公共和私人监管和支付可能会影响远程医疗的推广。美国食品和药物管理局的政策仍不确定,该机构仍在制定自己的立场。为了反映远程医疗服务可能跨越这些地区边界的事实,传统上由州和地点完成的关于临床医生执照和资格认证的政策正在发生变化。缺乏远程医疗服务的保险覆盖被认为是采用按服务收费方式的一个障碍。然而,在按人头支付和固定预算的情况下,医疗服务提供者有经济动机使用最有效的方法提供服务,如果远程医疗是成本较低的替代方案,这些安排将有利于远程医疗。如果远程医疗成本最高,而其健康效益值回成本,则可能需要进行监测,以确保护理质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信