telehealth

Are $59 Virtual Visits at CVS Health a Play for Women?

By M2|2018-08-23T13:49:46+00:00August 22nd, 2018|Health Care Trends, Innovation, Retail Health, telehealth, Uncategorized|

Are $59 Virtual Visits at CVS Health a Play for Women?

Last week we wrote about how CVS Health offering $59 telehealth video visits through the company’s retail medical clinic, MinuteClinic, would significantly change the health insurance market. This week, we are going a step further to consider the specific effects of the CVS Health offering for women.

As covered previously, CVS Health is looking to serve people with routine health needs who are shopping for lower costs. Who is doing that shopping? Primarily women. Women make “80% of the health care decisions for their families.” If the woman is a mother, surveys show more than 75% of the time, she is responsible for choosing a child’s health care provider and taking the child to health care appointments. Women who aren’t mothers are also often caregivers – nearly 50% of women without kids make health care decisions for a family member.

The combination of increasing deductibles – more than half of cost-sharing payments were in the form of a deductible for the first time in 2016 – and increasing need for health care at convenient times has already driven women to be the most likely users of retail clinics.

According to FAIR Health, in 2016, women accounted for a higher percentage of retail visits covered by insurance than men in nearly every age group. For people between the ages of 19 and 30 who visited a retail clinic, nearly 70% of visits were by women, as the chart below shows.

CVS Health, no doubt, already knows women are the primary users of their in-person MinuteClinics. Converting women MinuteClinic visitors to $59 telehealth visits shouldn’t be too difficult since women are the primary health care decision makers, and the virtual visits are cheaper and more convenient than going in-person to a CVS store.

Will other health care organizations follow CVS Health’s lead and start to cater more to women as health care consumers? Theirs seems like a data-driven strategy that other entities might be wise to emulate. Just as the $59 virtual visit will disrupt the health insurance market, the new CVS Health offering could also change the way the health care system meets the needs of the primary health care decision-maker in the U.S. – women.

CVS Health Just Upended the U.S. Health Insurance Market

By M2|2018-08-15T13:38:07+00:00August 14th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Health Plans, Health Reform, Innovation, Insurance, Out-of-pocket spending, Retail Health, telehealth, Uncategorized|

CVS Health Just Upended the U.S. Health Insurance Market

For $59, CVS Health will now offer telehealth video visits through the company’s retail medical clinic, MinuteClinic. The video visits will be available through the CVS Pharmacy App to anyone interested who lives in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Virginia – and Washington D.C.

This move will significantly change the health insurance market, and CVS’s merger with giant insurer Aetna isn’t even final, though reportedly, the “Justice Department’s antitrust division hasn’t turned up vertical competition concerns from the merger,” increasing the odds significantly that the deal closes before the end of the year.

What does CVS Health see that is driving this strategy? A shifting private health insurance market that requires people to pay up front for routine care, making consumers more sensitive to costs and less obligated to use a provider that is “in-network.” In the olden days (2006!), as the chart below shows, patients paid the majority of their cost-sharing payments in the form of copayments or coinsurance, that is, payments to providers who had an agreement with a health insurer. In 2016, for the first time, more than half of cost-sharing payments were in the form of a deductible, as the chart below from the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker shows.

MinuteClinic video visits for $59 (paid for directly by the consumer) capitalize on three ongoing trends: 1) Patients have to pay more, before insurance starts to pay for claims, making consumers more sensitive to cost; 2) Patients want more convenience and CVS can deliver it more cheaply, in no small part because there are no insurance forms or administrative costs; and 3) Payers are reluctant to pay for virtual visits.

First, CVS Health is looking to serve people with routine health needs who are shopping for lower costs.

According to FAIR Health, the median charge for a new patient office visit at a retail clinic in 2016 was $109, compared to $294 in an office setting. The average charges and allowed amounts for the most typical retail clinic visits are shown in the chart below from the FH Healthcare Indicators™ and FH Medical Price Index.™

Simply put, the video visits will be cheaper than retail clinic visits. And, even if a patient is referred from the MinuteClinic video visit to one of the 1,100 MinuteClinic physical locations, that patient is likely to save more than $100 for the visit compared to going to a physician visit.

Second, CVS is looking to leverage the steep rise of people seeking care in retail clinics, by offering a clear value proposition to use a MinuteClinic virtually because it’s cheaper and more convenient. As the chart from FH Healthcare Indicators™ and FH Medical Price Index™ below shows, retail clinic visits increased by 847% from 2011 to 2016 with growth in rural areas increasing by 704% and in urban areas by 865%.

Clearly, CVS Health knows their potential customer well. A survey of 5,000 virtual visit users published by the Advisory Board in April shows more than 33% of people who had a virtual visit lived in a city, compared to 9% who lived in the suburbs or rural areas. Virtual visit users are also high earners – 52% “make more than $71,000 a year,” and are more likely to have private insurance.

Third, CVS Health sees that getting insurance companies to pay for virtual visits is hard. Forbes recently touted telehealth in article titled, “Lower Cost Higher Quality Health Care Is Right At Our Fingertips“ but the author was blunt in his explanation of what is holding telehealth back:

“The biggest obstacles? Government. Insurance companies. Employers. They pay the bills. Not only have they been slow to take advantage of telemedicine, they are refusing to pay for most of it…”

Getting a virtual visit via the free CVS/pharmacy app for just $59 means a person can go around his or her insurance company – and CVS avoids that hassle, too. Here are just a few ways that CVS Health’s approach differs from regular health insurance: You don’t need a referral. You don’t need to wait days for an appointment. You probably don’t have to take time off work because the virtual visits are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If you are one of the 40% of people who has employer-sponsored insurance but is enrolled in a high deductible health plan (HDHP), you probably love the idea of a cheaper alternative to a retail clinic since you are accustomed to paying out-of-pocket for your basic care now. Even if you have insurance, it doesn’t matter, because the virtual visits can only be paid for with a credit or debit card (CVS Health said they will add insurance coverage and national coverage by the end of the year).

Insurers have been offering limited products, in limited geographies, with limited providers, their “network,” for years. The launch of MinuteClinic video visits will be trumpeted as a huge value for consumers. That is only half the story. How will health care providers convince people who are mostly healthy that they have to wait for appointments between 10am and 3pm at a complex, integrated health system where they have to pay to park? How will insurers convince people to continue to buy the expensive, comprehensive coverage on offer today? This move will start to change the way people think about what insurance is even for. Now THAT is disruptive.

Patients Like It and Physicians are Interested – Why Isn’t Telehealth Flourishing?

By M2|2017-10-08T11:39:21+00:00June 21st, 2017|Health Care Trends, telehealth, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Patients Like It and Physicians are Interested – Why Isn’t Telehealth Flourishing?

Most people don’t really like going to the doctor. But at least some studies are showing people are more comfortable when the “going to” part of seeing a doctor is taken out of the equation.

Telehealth is defined as the use of medical information exchanged from one location to another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s health.

So how do patients view telehealth? In a recent study of patient experiences following video visits with their primary care physicians, all 19 patients interviewed reported overall satisfaction with the video visits. Most reported being interested in continuing use of video visits as an alternative to in-person visits.

Convenience and decreased costs were the main benefits cited. Some of the patients reported feeling more comfortable with video visits and preferred to receive serious news via video visits, as they could be “in their own supportive environment.”

But are physicians routinely offering telehealth visits to their patients?

In family practice, the answer is no; only 15% of family physicians had used telehealth services during 2014, according to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine.

Physician telehealth users differed from nonusers in many ways. They were more likely to be located in a rural setting (26 percent vs. 15 percent), to use an electronic health record (97 percent vs. 92 percent), and to work in a practice with at least 6 family physicians (40 percent vs. 29 percent). In addition, telehealth users were less likely to work in a privately owned practice and to provide general primary care to their patients.

Physician telehealth users were also less likely to report at least one barrier to providing telehealth services in their office than nonusers. Lack of training and reimbursement were the most common barriers identified by both users and nonusers.

“If telehealth services are to have a major impact in the primary care setting, more physicians will need to become experienced in the use of these services,” the authors conclude, noting that many of the barriers to wider adoption “are amenable to policy modifications.”

“One suggestion for overcoming the training barrier is for family medicine residency programs to ensure that graduating residents are offered opportunities to use telehealth services. To address issues of reimbursement, governmental and private payers could engage in outreach efforts to increase awareness of their current allowed payments for telehealth and either expand the types of telehealth services currently eligible for payment or develop new ways to reimburse telehealth services,” the authors say.

The bottom line is that “uptake in the United States has occurred most rapidly where reimbursement is favorable,” according to the authors of recent study in The Annals of Family Medicine. Notably, Medicare reimburses for telehealth specifically in areas where there are health care professional shortages and for specific approved services, the study says.

As far as patient preferences, the study participants “repeatedly cited reduced costs as an important benefit of video visits,” the authors note.

As part of a pilot program evaluated in this study, patients were not required to pay a co-pay for their video visits. “While this likely contributed to participants’ opinions of the cost benefits, patients also noted that they saved transportation costs and were absent from work for less time,” the authors say.

“Further work is needed to identify the full range of patient cost considerations related to telehealth, they state. “Cost issues have important implications for practices and health systems incorporating telehealth into care models, as they are likely to impact patient satisfaction and uptake of virtual services.”

If it is cheaper to the patient, and it provides high-quality care that the patient is satisfied with, why wouldn’t we reimburse for it?