Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Free access
Short Communication
8 November 2021

An economic evaluation of teledermatology care delivery for chronic skin diseases

Authors: Robert Skinner https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0195-2121 [email protected], Andrew Breck https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0950-5796, and Dominick Esposito https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2995-9736Author Info & Affiliations
Volume 11, Number 2
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2021-0062
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: Analyze the impact of nationwide implementation of teledermatological care for psoriasis. Methods: Develop a Markov model that estimates the impact of telehealth technology for treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis on health and healthcare expenditures compared with in-person clinical care. Results: Lower medical costs by US$1.5 billion and total social costs of US$4.3 billion over 5 years. Patients save more than 67 million hours in work absenteeism and travel time, valued at US$598 million. Employers save US$1.2 billion over 5 years due to decreased employee absenteeism. Conclusion: National implementation of telehealth for psoriasis care has the potential to substantially reduce both formal healthcare costs and informal costs for families and patients, while maintaining equivalent clinical outcomes as traditional in-person care.

Lay abstract

Recent innovations in telehealth (methods of accessing and managing healthcare using digital information and technologies, such as the computer or telephone) have allowed for convenient access to care for dermatology patients. A recent study found that psoriasis patients experienced similar quality of care outcomes when using telehealth services as they did when seeing a clinician in-person. This paper builds on previous work examining teledermatological care outcomes and aims to analyze the potential economic impacts of a nationwide implementation of telehealth for managing psoriasis. We model the impacts of healthcare utilization and costs, caregiver time loss, and work absenteeism costs between the telehealth and in-person care settings. These results produce cost savings to society of over US$4.3 billion over 5 years.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDFView Full Text

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
HHS CDC NCHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics). (2015). NHANES questionnaire data 2013–2014 [Dataset]. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/search/datapage.aspx?Component=Questionnaire&CycleBeginYear=2013
Google Scholar
2.
Kolli SS, Amin SD, Pona A, Cline A, Feldman SR. Psychosocial impact of psoriasis: a review for dermatology residents. Cutis 102(5), 21–25 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Glazer A, Farberg A, Winkelmann R, Rigel D. Analysis of trends in geographic distribution and density of US dermatologists. JAMA Dermatol. 153(4), 322–325 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Armstrong AW, Ford AR, Chambers CJ et al. Online care versus in-person care for improving quality of life in psoriasis: a randomized controlled equivalency trial. J. Invest. Dermatol. 139(5), 1037–1044 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Presents quality of life results as measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index between patients in the online and in-person groups.
5.
Armstrong AW, Chambers CJ, Maverakis E et al. Effectiveness of online vs in-person care for adults with psoriasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 1(6), e183062 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Presents the results of the PASI and BSA scores between patients in the online and in-person groups.
6.
Ford AR, Gibbons CM, Torres J et al. Access to dermatological care with an innovative online model for psoriasis management: results from a randomized controlled trial. Telemed. J. E. Health 5(7), 619–627 (2018).
Google Scholar
•• Presents the results of travel distance and time between the online and in-person groups.
7.
Krupinski E, Barker G, Rodriguez G et al. Telemedicine versus in-person dermatology referrals: an analysis of case complexity. Telemed. J. E. Health 8(2), 143–147 (2002).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
U.S. Census Bureau. Quickfacts: United States (2018). https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218
Google Scholar
9.
Armstrong AW, Robertson AD, Wu J, Schupp C, Lebwohl MG. Undertreatment, treatment trends, and treatment dissatisfaction among patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the United States: findings from the National Psoriasis Foundation surveys, 2003–2011. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 149(10), 1180–1185 (2013).
Google Scholar
10.
Icen M, Crowson CS, McEvoy MT, Dann FJ, Gabriel SE, Maradit Kremers H. Trends in incidence of adult-onset psoriasis over three decades: a population-based study. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 60(3), 394–401 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Ogdie A, Haynes K, Troxel AB et al. Risk of mortality in patients with psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis: a longitudinal cohort study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 73(1), 149–153 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Takeshita J, Gelfand JM, Li P et al. Psoriasis in the US Medicare population: prevalence, treatment, and factors associated with biologic use. J. Invest. Dermatol. 135(12), 2955–2963 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Wolff JL, Roter DL. Family presence in routine medical visits: a meta-analytical review. Soc. Sci. Med. 72(6), 823–831 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Parsi K, Chambers CJ, Armstrong AW. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a patient-centered care model for management of psoriasis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 66(4), 563–570 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Compares costs of online and in-person psoriasis care at an academic medical center.
15.
HHS AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) (2019). MEPS HC-201: 2017 Full Year Consolidated Data File [Dataset]. https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files_detail.jsp?cboPufNumber=HC-201
Google Scholar
16.
Beyer V, Wolverton SE. Recent trends in systemic psoriasis treatment costs. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 146(1), 46–54 (2010).
Google Scholar
17.
Rothstein BE, Gonzalez J, Cunningham K et al. Direct and indirect patient costs of dermatology clinic visits and their impact on access to care and provider preference. Cutis 100(6), 405–410 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
BLS DOL (2018). Earnings, median usual weekly earnings, employed full time, 2018, by quarter. Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey. Series ID LEU0252881500. https://www.bls.gov/cps/
Google Scholar
19.
BLS DOL (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor) (2019). Employer costs for employee compensation for December 2018. https://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/news-release/employercostsforemployeecompensation_regions.htm
Google Scholar
20.
BLS DOL (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor) (2018). Civilian labor force participation rate, seasonally adjusted total for all months in 2018. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm
Google Scholar
21.
BLS DOL (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor) (2018). Earnings, median usual weekly earnings, employed full time, 2018. Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey. Series ID LEU0254543600, LEU0258117500. https://www.bls.gov/cps/
Google Scholar
22.
Chambers CJ, Parsi K, Schupp C et al. Patient-centered online management of psoriasis: a randomized controlled equivalency trial. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 66(6), 948–953 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
HHS AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) (2019). MEPS HC-199: 2017 Medical Conditions File [Dataset]. https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files_detail.jsp?cboPufNumber=HC-199
Google Scholar
24.
USDA ERS (Economic Research Service) (2013). 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes [Dataset]. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/
Google Scholar
25.
MACPAC (Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission) (2018). Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP: june 2018. https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/June-2018-Report-to-Congress-on-Medicaid-and-CHIP.pdf
Google Scholar
26.
Ashwood JS, Mehrotra A, Cowling D, Uscher-Pines L. Direct-to-consumer telehealth may increase access to care but does not decrease spending. Health Aff. 36(3), 485–491 (2017).
Google Scholar
27.
Mann DM, Chen J, Chunara R, Testa PA, Nov O. COVID-19 transforms health care through telemedicine: evidence from the field. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. ocaa072, https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa072 (2020).
Google Scholar
28.
Perkins S, Cohen JM, Nelson CA, Bunick CG. Teledermatology in the era of COVID-19: experience of an academic department of dermatology. JAMA Dermatol. 83(1), e43–e44 (2020).
Google Scholar
• Describes the experience of caring for patients in a dermatology clinic using telehealth during COVID-19.
|