Telehealth may not be cost-effective, finds a study conducted by the London School of Economics, according to a Reuters report.
Researchers tested the cost-effectiveness of telehealth compared with standard care over one year. They studied 965 patients with one of three long-term conditions: heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or diabetes.
The study found that the cost per quality adjusted life year of telehealth, when added to standard care, was $139,200. This is much higher than the benchmark cost used by Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for assessing if medical interventions are worth using on a state-run service. According to researchers, this does not mean that telehealth is a waste of time or money, but rather that it needs to be better targeted.
Telehealth Would Get Increased Federal Support Under Proposed House Bill
Case Study: Iowa Health System's Pursuit of Interoperability & Telehealth
Researchers tested the cost-effectiveness of telehealth compared with standard care over one year. They studied 965 patients with one of three long-term conditions: heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or diabetes.
The study found that the cost per quality adjusted life year of telehealth, when added to standard care, was $139,200. This is much higher than the benchmark cost used by Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for assessing if medical interventions are worth using on a state-run service. According to researchers, this does not mean that telehealth is a waste of time or money, but rather that it needs to be better targeted.
More Articles on Telehealth:
3 Points of Clarity in Telehealth Spur Adoption, ExpansionTelehealth Would Get Increased Federal Support Under Proposed House Bill
Case Study: Iowa Health System's Pursuit of Interoperability & Telehealth