Although the business model for telemedicine for acute care appears strong on its surface – with the combination of customer convenience being location independence at its core – the medical and human model is much weaker.
First of all, regarding the medicine of telemedicine, there is not much evidence that it is safe and effective.
A hundred years of medicine has been based on the physical exam, and although certainly there is a chance that we can manage many acute diseases without a physical exam, there is no vast body of literature to suggest you can diagnosis a “pink eye” safely, or rule out a bad strep threat form an abscess without an exam. The evidence just isn’t there.
(Why is evidence important? Because when things go bad – and they will – this evidence will be needed as you, the doctor, are standing up front of a jury).
However, what I think is even more substantial is the human factor.
Look, the practice of medicine is both physically and mentally challenging, but one of the ways we doctors compensate for this is the face to face, human interaction we get in return.
It recharges us, and reinvigorates us. Heck, one deep meaning “Thank you” from a mother after telling her that her child will be fine, can make up for most any difficult day.
However, in telemedicine for acute care, this human interaction won’t exist, and what this means in practice is that the really good doctors – the special ones who don’t just treat the disease but the whole person – will not be attracted to this form of practice even if it has been proven to offer adequate care.
The bottom line: Over time, after telemedicine for acute care moves out of the university and experimental phase, the best doctors will avoid it, and it will soon become second class medicine.
Anyway, approach telemedicine with caution.
Just because the business model looks good, doesn’t mean it is going to be good medicine for actual people to both use and practice.