Read more

December 04, 2020
1 min read
Save

Teledermatology triage system may reduce costs

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Using a teledermatology triage system resulted in significant cost savings for one dermatology department, according to a study published in JAMA Dermatology.

The retrospective cost minimization analysis included 2,098 patients who were treated at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center following the 2015 implementation of a teledermatology triage system. The mean cost of patient management was evaluated using a decision tree model.

“Teledermatology (TD) enables remote evaluation and management of patients with dermatologic disease,” Adam Zakaria, BA, of the department of dermatology, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, and colleagues wrote. “Studies have found that TD improves patient access to care and clinical efficiency without forgoing diagnostic accuracy or negatively affecting patient experience.”

The study found that mean costs per patient visit were $272.80 per primary care visit, $324.90 per dermatology clinic visit and $44.25 per teledermatology consult.

Those within the TD triage model had a mean cost per patient of $559.84 compared with $699.96 for those in the conventional care model. This was a statistically significant cost savings of $140.12 (P < .001), or an annual savings of $441,378 based on an annual referral volume of 3,150 patients.

“Implementation of TD at the ZSFG was associated with a significant reduction in the mean cost of managing patients referred to the dermatology department,” the authors wrote. “Therefore, TD has the potential to produce cost savings when applied in closed health care systems.”

Only personnel costs and technology costs were included, not fixed costs, which was one of the study’s limitations. In addition, revenue generated from billing was not included in the analysis.