As the door closes on Telehealth 1.0, a window to modern healthcare opens
At first glance, it's been a rough week for telehealth. Two big players announced they were shutting down their virtual care businesses, and companies that were riding high during the pandemic have continued their slump.
It sure looks like a trend — but not the one many think. What we're witnessing is not a post-COVID pullback from virtual care, but the long-predicted demise of the phone-a-doc model.
In fact, this week's headlines are a positive sign that healthcare is actually capable (for once!) of putting outmoded digital models and thinking into the proverbial woodchipper to create the conditions for richer growth and innovation to take root.
The shriveling of #telehealth 1.0 marks an important maturation moment, reflecting a consensus that there is limited value in one-off video visits occurring in a vacuum. Connecting MDs with someone suffering from the sniffles isn't transformational; it's transactional — a commodity that fails to serve the whole person, be it patient or clinician.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Telehealth 1.0 served its purpose as a stepping stone and had its well-deserved moment, but it hasn't unlocked enough value for consumers or purchasers of these services. What remains? Too many people have one app for urgent care, another for therapy, alongside a handful of point solution apps — all completely disconnected from a plethora of patient portals and medical records. This isn't progress; it's more logins.
As we close the door on telehealth 1.0, we create space for a more meaningful exploration of what the next chapter of digital health actually is. Despite reports to the contrary, virtual care is still very much in demand — especially for people and populations who have historically encountered access barriers in traditional care settings and/or are seeking a more convenient and effective way to manage chronic conditions.
The next frontier (and battleground) is bringing together clinical quality, innovation, technology, and new business models to serve people’s holistic healthcare needs, not just provide a transactional connection to a doctor. What people need from healthcare is a modern experience, a single place to go to that is designed to meet ALL of their needs, one that connects ALL the dimensions of health and is fully connected to ALL of healthcare’s highest-quality resources and settings, both virtual and in person.
When the mission and vision are bigger than telehealth, this week has been reaffirming.
Great article Owen Tripp!
Hope efforts and strides to keep access to virtual care continue!
Good post Owen. Its ironic (to me anyway) that you refer to the latest chapter as Telehealth 1.0. While at Providence (~2015) we considered 1.0 to be when a doctor/ dept grabbed off-the-shelf tech like Skype or Facetime to start video-conferencing. 2.0 = emergence of purpose-built technology solutions (think Intouch) like carts, peripherals, etc. 3.0 = the realization that tech was ubiquitous, & it was going to be more about "management of the provider bench" which ushered in the latest era of Teledoc, Amwell, MDLive, etc. launching their "benches" of providers via technology, as well as evolution of the software solutions that leveraged the tech. As a health system we realized that use of these 'external benches' created a 'leakage' issue. And so we invested heavily in the internal evolution of our own infrastructure and processes to return to the core of "providing healthcare." Whether that be in-personHEALTH or telephoneHEALTH or virtualHEALTH... it's all "healthcare." And the federation of these things will always be a problem. Particularly the way remuneration is managed. Thanks to Todd Czartoski, Tammy Cress RN, MSN, Sherene Schlegel Ben Panwala, MD Aaron Martin and the many others who contributed to this work.
Good article Owen, going forward how do we call out the biggest obstacle facing value-based care and Telehealth 2.0 which Walmart outlined as "challenges with reimbursement"? Included helps connect the fragmentation in healthcare, but how do we change the incentives. It's a "battleground" for sure.