Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-mrc2z Total loading time: 0.372 Render date: 2021-04-19T07:48:06.675Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

ON THE COSTS OF HOME-BASED TELEMEDICINE PROGRAMS: A COMMENT ON MICHAUD ET AL.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 December 2018

Kristian Kidholm
Affiliation:
Center for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Dear Dr. Babidge:

In a recent review on the costs of home-based telemedicine programs, Michaud et al. (Reference Michaud, Zhou, McCarthy, Siahpush and Su1) have identified twelve cost studies and on this basis concluded that “All selected studies indicate that home telemedicine programs reduce care costs, although detailed cost data were either incomplete or not presented in detail.”

We have made a similar review of nine economic evaluations of telemedicine used for home monitoring in chronic disease management, Kidholm and Kristensen (Reference Kidholm and Kristensen2), and concluded: “However, in total, home monitoring resulted in increased average costs per patient in six studies and reduced costs in three of the nine studies.”

The two reviews differ with regard to the countries where the studies are carried out and the design of the studies. Whereas Michaud et al. only included studies of telemedicine programs implemented in the United States, our review included studies from Europe, Australia, and Canada. In addition, Michaud et al. included randomized controlled trials, case study design, quasi experimental design, and pilot studies, whereas we only included randomized controlled trials. But the main difference between the two reviews is that our review only included studies reporting the estimated costs per patient, the home-monitoring program costs and the costs per patient related to investment and use of home-monitoring equipment.

Our decision only to include studies that give detailed information about the costs of the telemedicine program and thereby comply with guidelines for health economic evaluation (e.g., Drummond et al.) (Reference Drummond, Sculpher, Claxton, Stoddart and Torrance3) was based on previous reviews of studies of the costs of telemedicine programs. For example, Mistry (Reference Mistry4) who described that most economic evaluations of telemedicine have inadequate details about study design and methodology, including how costs were collected and calculated. Because of these methodological problems, it was concluded that no further evidence was found that telemedicine interventions were cost-effective.

Similar to Mistry (Reference Mistry4), the review by Michaud et al. includes several studies based on a design with low level of evidence, small sample sizes, and studies that do not report the equipment costs. Therefore, Michaud et al. advantageously could have made a less definite conclusion reflecting the uncertainty and the methodological problems in the data in the same way as Mistry (Reference Mistry4).

On the other hand, Michaud et al. appropriately request future studies with more detailed information about the costs of telemedicine and point out, that this is needed before wide adaptation of telemedicine takes place. In addition, more recent economic studies are needed because the studies included in the review where published from 2000 to 2010. Thus, the technologies being assessed do not reflect the recent technical developments and the increasing use of patients’ own devices in telemedicine that can be expected to reduce the costs of telemedicine programs. Until more updated and methodologically sound studies have been published, it is important not to be too conclusive in description of the existing evidence on the economics of home monitoring telemedicine programs.

References

1.Michaud, TL, Zhou, J, McCarthy, MA, Siahpush, M, Su, D. Costs of home-based telemedicine programs: A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34:410-418. doi:10.1017/S0266462318000454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Kidholm, K, Kristensen, MBD. A scoping review of economic evaluations alongside randomised controlled trials of home monitoring in chronic disease management. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16:167-176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Claxton, K, Stoddart, GL, Torrance, GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
4.Mistry, H. Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18:16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 39
Total number of PDF views: 167 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 31st December 2018 - 19th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

ON THE COSTS OF HOME-BASED TELEMEDICINE PROGRAMS: A COMMENT ON MICHAUD ET AL.
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

ON THE COSTS OF HOME-BASED TELEMEDICINE PROGRAMS: A COMMENT ON MICHAUD ET AL.
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

ON THE COSTS OF HOME-BASED TELEMEDICINE PROGRAMS: A COMMENT ON MICHAUD ET AL.
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *