In 2018, the current inhabitants of this planet live in the digital age. As technology advances faster than ever, the question arises: should the current state of healthcare be as transformative as the technology we have today and, in doing so, is there a cost advantage? Virtual appointments in the medical profession are not as rare as some would like to think. There appears to be a greater need for patients to receive medical care in the comfort of their home for a variety of reasons, but the driving factor in today's society is money. The research question of this article focuses specifically on: Are virtual doctor appointments an economic benefit for patients? If so, how much money can a patient save on average compared to a face-to-face appointment. With an array of academic literature published in journals such as The Telemedicine and E-Health Journal, this article will specifically examine the cost-benefit of virtual doctor visits. With many studies published, I will focus my research on the cost/benefit ratio for patients with chronic illnesses as well as patients who live far from a primary care provider. In doing so, I will show the magnitude of the cost savings from various perspectives to see whether the economic gain from virtual visits is something that every patient should have access to or whether the cost-benefit only works for a select group of patients. individuals. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay In order to understand the potential cost-saving benefits of virtual healthcare, it is equally important to understand the cost of a doctor visit in a variety of and with or without medical insurance. According to America's Debt Help Organization, a nonprofit organization, provides information on a range of different medical appointments. On their website, they list the average amount it costs for a patient to see a doctor for 15 minutes for a level three appointment (i.e. someone with the flu). The average cost without insurance was $104. When combined with the average health insurance, the price drops to $69, a difference but not a significant difference (America's Debt Help Organization, 2018). Other areas of focus are the price of a tetanus shot without insurance which is $28, 40 minutes with the doctor for a more serious problem costs around $204 and seeing the doctor for 10 minutes to clean an ear or have a strep test costs $68 (without insurance). After reviewing the data, the question arises whether there is a cost-effective alternative to general in-person doctor visits. Focusing on virtual appointments opens the door to conversations about the current healthcare system as well as reviewing previously published literature to see the cost benefits. Virtual doctor appointments are more common than they seem, so now the question is really looking at the cost to see if practices across the United States should offer this option to patients. Factors discussed in this article include, but are not limited to, the overall cost of the appointment (usually with insurance), travel costs (mileage), and general patient comfort, which may not be a monetary cost but personal mental health costs. The article will focus on two studies in order to answer the question of the profitability of servicesvirtual health care. I am not able to conduct my own study at this time, so I will review the literature that specifically examines the overall costs of virtual health appointments. By looking at the literature, I can get a broader perspective on the subject. If I were doing my own research, I would be limited to the area of ​​the state I live in and the demographics of my location. As I review the literature, I get a multitude of perspectives, from patients with chronic illnesses to rural patients who have a harder time accessing health care based on their location. The major downside of not doing my own research is reading and interpreting someone else's work. However, through methods such as the CRAAP test, I am able to ensure credibility, a major element in holding a piece of literature to a high enough standard to be presented in this article. Of the three documents I selected for this study, two are from various publications in The Telemedicine and E-Health Journal by various researchers who enjoy extreme credibility and authorship in their field and one article published by the BMC Health Service group. The first study published by Finkelstein et al., in The Telemedicine and E-Health Journal, examines cost-effective benefits for patients considered chronically ill. In this study, a team of researchers examines the question of the cost/benefit ratio for patients with chronic diseases. In their study, the team of researchers selected a randomized group of thirty patients with chronic illnesses and randomized them again to receive the same treatment as face-to-face. The patients were divided into three groups: one receiving virtual healthcare (C), one receiving nursing care at home (V), and the third group went to the doctor's office to receive their care (M). They also looked at the discharge rate, which helps determine the cost because longer treatment results in a higher bill. By comparing the three subgroups, the research team was able to determine the average cost for someone receiving face-to-face care compared to those receiving virtual care from their own home. The second study published by Zanaboni et al., specifically focused their research on individuals or families who lived far from affordable access to health care or in a rural community. Using this specific demographic, the team of researchers looked at the financial benefits of virtual healthcare and compared them to overall costs as well as total miles driven. In this study, they examined 957 teleconsultation contracts, or those responsible for setting up the possibility of virtual appointments. They focused on 812 patients with symptomatic problems or concerns in 30 rural communities. The researchers also referenced 48 general practitioners throughout the study. The overall goal of the study was to see if virtual healthcare visits to patients living in a rural community were cost-effective and overall effective for the patient's health. The third study published in The Telemedicine and E-Health Journal, Noel et al. ., specifically looked at overall feasibility, which helps demonstrate cost benefits. In this study, the two researchers examined how cost-effective it was to implement virtual healthcare practice from the perspective of not only money but also the convenience of the doctor and the patient having an appointment virtual. The study was carried outin a total of 104 patients with chronic diseases: heart failure, lung disease and diabetes were first assessed virtually and then re-assessed face-to-face to see if doctors would provide the same type of treatment and in turn looking at the overall efficiency from a monetary and mental perspective. In the first article, Finkelstein et al., found a correlation between virtual health appointments and lower cost for patients with chronic conditions. In their study, they found that patients who received virtual healthcare had a 42% discharge rate after 6 months of study. Doing the math, this means that 4.2 out of the ten patients who were placed in this group received their care and were able to finish treatment within 6 months. Comparing the 42% of patients receiving virtual healthcare to the next group, only 15%, or 1.5 patients who received nursing home care, were discharged. That's more than half, which equates to a lower healthcare cost since more patients were being discharged from the hospital after the same amount of time. Finally, they found patients who went to face-to-face appointments, 21% of these patients, or 2.1 patients, were discharged from the hospital after 6 months. Looking at the data, researchers said the average cost for an in-person visit was $48.27, $32.06 to $38.62 for nursing home care (depending on the care provided and insurance) and $22.11 for patients who received virtual health care. . Data shows a nearly 50% difference between face-to-face and virtual healthcare and, over 6 months, these numbers could and do add up, creating higher costs for patients receiving the same level of care but in varied contexts. What's worth noting about the first study is that it didn't refer to the type of chronic illness the patients had. Not knowing their illness, it was impossible to determine its severity. Patients with more aggressive or severe long-term illnesses will likely need more time for treatment to work. By randomizing the group, it is almost impossible to know whether the group receiving virtual healthcare had patients with less severe illnesses than the other two groups. The second study by Zanaboni et al., found a correlation between virtual health care saving people in rural areas. money in the region compared to those same people going to face-to-face appointments. They found that among their 812 patients in the 30 rural communities, 86% of patients reported a lower cost. In 5% of cases, they found that practicing virtual healthcare was faster and less time-consuming, meaning appointments took less time but patients were more satisfied with their care. Finally, 95% of patients, or 771 people, say that their experience was generally effective and that they would do it again because of the quality of the care received. On closer inspection, the article does not publish costs, but only the notion of patients. reported lower cost for health care. The authors mention that a driving factor in the increased savings is that patients saved money because they did not have to travel more than 30 miles to their appointment. In 2008-2009, the average cost of gasoline was approximately $4.00, fluctuating slightly up or down depending on location and month. Driving 30 miles round trip for a 10 minute appointment, the cost of gas couldaccumulate significantly and quickly. Knowing this information and looking at the first study published only three years prior, when gas prices were relatively close: in 2006, the price of gas averaged around $3.00 and in 2008, around $4.00 , it is therefore plausible to conclude that there is additional mileage. to the overall cost and can safely assume that patients were paying about $50 for in-person health care on top of the price of gasoline. The third study focused specifically on three audiences, quality of life, health resources used and overall cost. Noel et al., found that using virtual healthcare, there was a significant decrease after 6 months with daily care, thereby reducing the cost to the patient. They also found that fewer patients receiving virtual care had fewer visits to emergency rooms, as well as urgent care offices. They also found an increase in overall patient satisfaction at 3- and 6-month check-ins, increasing the benefits of virtual care for mental health. Studies two and three do not specifically mention numbers when talking about cost reductions. They use strong language, like making a significant and sweeping claim that there is a big enough difference to support the idea of ​​virtual healthcare. By having a wide variety of people treated between studies two and three, it can be said that there is a reduction in costs for patients who have access to virtual healthcare. Studies two and three also examine benefits to patients' overall quality of health, which range from satisfaction surveys about their overall treatment to how they would rate their quality of life. All three studies are unique in that they examine a different subgroup for their studies. By representing a varied clientele, we can see in all areas that there is a cost advantage for patients. In all three studies, numerical measures were used to indicate these cost-benefits, as well as sampling more people at a time to show meaningful data. By having control groups of 30 or more people, the studies themselves have gained reputation due to a larger sample size. Randomization was another key factor in the studies and by randomizing it ensured the authenticity of the study as it eliminated bias since no one could predetermine who would be in which group. Having multiple groups receive different lengths of treatment created a sense of validity because it gave the researchers a way to compare their data and pit it against their hypotheses. In a globalized and ever-changing, technology-driven world, the reality of virtual healthcare is becoming more and more present. The research presented demonstrates how cost-effective virtual healthcare is for the patient. The relevance is evident in the digital world and patients living further from accessible healthcare. It is important that these studies were conducted because if technological trends continue, healthcare must keep up with the times and meet the needs of its patients. Moving on, as medicine itself is constantly changing, the way medicine is practiced should also be changed. It goes without saying that there will always be times when going to the doctor is necessary, but if a person can care in a safe and secure environment, in the comfort of their own home, the patient should be able to do so with technology current. However, patients should be aware of the.