In 2018, the current people of this planet are living in a digital age. With technology advancing faster than ever the question becomes: should the current state of healthcare be as transformative as the technology we have today, and is there a cost benefit in doing so? Virtual appointments in the medical profession are not as rare as some would like to think. There appears to be an increased need for patients to receive medical care from the comfort of their own home due to a number of factors, but the driving factor in today's society is money. The research question for this article focuses specifically on: Are virtual medical appointments an economic benefit to patients? If so, how much money can a patient save on average compared to an in-person appointment? With a number of academic publications published in journals such as The Telemedicine and E-Health Journal, this paper will specifically examine the cost benefits of virtual doctor visits. With numerous studies published, I will focus my research on the cost benefit for patients with chronic conditions and for patients living far from a primary care provider. In doing so, I will show the breadth of cost savings from a variety of perspectives to see whether virtual visits are something that every patient should have access to or whether the cost benefit only works for a select group of individuals. . We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To understand the potential cost-saving benefits of virtual healthcare, it is equally important to understand the cost of going to the doctor in a variety of healthcare facilities and with or without medical insurance. According to America's Debt Help Organization, a non-profit organization, it provides information for a number of different medical appointments. On their website they state the average amount it costs a patient to see a doctor for 15 minutes for a level three appointment (i.e. someone with the flu), the average cost without insurance was $104. When paired with insurance average health care, the price drops to $69, a difference but not significant (America's Debt Help Organization, 2018). Other areas of focus are the price of a tetanus shot without insurance is $28, 40 minutes with the doctor for a more serious matter is about $204, and seeing the doctor for 10 minutes to have an ear cleaned or done a strep test is $68 (without insurance). The question after examining the data becomes: is there a cost-effective alternative to general in-person doctor visits. Focusing on virtual appointments opens the door to conversations about the current healthcare system and reviewing already published literature to see the cost benefits. Virtual doctor appointments are more common than they seem, the question now is to really dive into the costs to see if doctor's offices in the US should be offering patients this option. Factors addressed in this document include, but are not limited to, the overall cost of the appointment (typically with insurance), the cost of travel (mileage), and overall comfort for the patient which may not be a monetary cost but a mental health staff. The paper will focus on two studies to answer the question of the cost-effectiveness of virtual health benefits. I am unable to do my study at this time, so I will review the literature it reviewsspecifically the overall costs for virtual health appointments. By looking at the literature I am able to gain a broader perspective on the topic. If I were to do my research I would limit myself to the area of ​​the state I live in and the demographics of my location. By examining the literature, I am gaining a multitude of perspectives, from chronically ill patients to rural patients who have more difficulty accessing healthcare due to their location. The major disadvantage of not doing my own research lies in reading and interpreting someone else's work. However, through methods such as the CRAAP test, I am able to ensure credibility, an important component in holding a piece of literature to a high enough standard to be presented in this article. Of the three pieces of literature I selected for this study, two are from various publications in The Telemedicine and E-Health Journal by various researchers who hold extreme credibility and authorship in their fields and one piece published by the BMC Health Service group. The first study published by Finkelstein et al., in The Telemedicine and E-Health Journal, examines the cost-effectiveness benefits for patients considered chronically ill. In this study, a team of researchers delves into the question of cost benefit for patients with chronic diseases. In their study the team of researchers selected a randomized group of thirty chronically ill patients and randomized them once again to receive the same treatment they would have received in a face-to-face encounter. The patients were divided into three groups: one who received virtual healthcare (C), one who received home nursing care (V), and the third group went to the doctor to receive care there (M). They also looked at the discharge rate which helps determine the cost because longer treatment results in a higher bill. By comparing the three subgroups, the research team was able to determine the average cost for someone receiving in-person care versus those receiving virtual care from their home. The second study published by Zanaboni et al., specifically focused their research on individuals or families who lived far outside affordable access to health care or in a rural community. Using this specific demographic, the team of researchers examined the cost benefits of virtual healthcare and compared them to overall costs and overall miles driven. This study examined 957 teleconsultation or manager contracts that included the possibility of virtual appointments. They focused on 812 patients with symptomatic problems or concerns in 30 rural communities. The researchers also referred 48 general practitioners during the study. The overall purpose of the study was to test whether virtual health visits to patients living in a rural community were cost-effective and overall effective for the patient's health. The third study published in The Telemedicine and E-Health Journal, Noel et al., looked specifically at overall feasibility, which in turn allows cost benefits to be demonstrated. In this study, the two researchers examined how cost-effective it was to implement virtual healthcare practice from the perspective of not only money but also the doctor's and patient's convenience of having a virtual appointment. The study was conducted on a total of 104 patients with chronic diseases: heart failure, lung disease and diabetes were first assessed virtually and then re-evaluated in aface-to-face context to see if doctors would provide the same type of treatment and in turn examining the overall effectiveness from a monetary and mental perspective. In the first piece, Finkelstein et al., found a correlation between virtual health appointments and a lower cost for chronically ill patients. In their study they found that patients receiving virtual healthcare had a 42% discharge rate after 6 months of the study. Doing the math, that is, 4.2 out of ten patients included in this group received healthcare and were able to complete treatment within 6 months. Comparing 42% of virtual healthcare patients to the next group, only 15% or 1.5 patients were discharged and received home nursing care. This is more than half, which correlates with a lower cost of healthcare as more patients were discharged after the same period of time. Finally, they found patients who went for an in-person appointment, 21% of these patients, or 2.1 patients, were discharged after 6 months. Analyzing the data, the researchers said the average cost of the in-person visit was $48.27, $32.06-$38.62 for home care (depending on care performed and insurance), and $ 22.11 for patients receiving virtual healthcare. . The data shows a nearly 50% difference between in-person and virtual healthcare, and over the course of 6 months these numbers could add up, creating higher costs for patients who receive the same level of care but in a variety of contexts. An interesting thing. The thing to note about the first study is that they did not refer to the type of chronic disease that the patients had. Not knowing their illness it was impossible to establish its severity. Patients with more aggressive or severe long-term disease will likely need longer for treatment to work. By randomizing the group, it is nearly impossible to tell whether the group receiving virtual healthcare had patients with less severe disease than the other two groups. The second study, conducted by Zanaboni et al., found a correlation between virtual healthcare saving people in rural areas money versus those same people going to in-person appointments. They found that out of 812 patients in 30 rural communities, 86% of patients reported a lower cost to them. In 5% of cases they found that the timeliness of virtual healthcare practice was faster and less time consuming, meaning appointments took less time but patients were more satisfied with their care. Finally, 95% of patients, or 771 people, reported that their experience was overall effective and that they would do it again due to the quality of care received. Looking more closely at the issue, the article does not publish the costs, only the concept of patients. reported a lower cost for health care. The authors mention a driving factor for the increased savings is that patients saved money because they didn't have to drive more than 30 miles to get to their appointment. In 2008-2009, the average cost of gas was around $4.00 and fluctuated slightly higher or lower depending on location and month. Driving 30 miles round trip for a 10-minute appointment could cause your fuel costs to add up significantly and quickly. Knowing this information and looking at the first study published just three years earlier, when gas prices were relatively close: in 2006 the price of gas averaged about $3.00 and in 2008 it averaged about $4.00, therefore it is plausible to conclude that themileage added to the overall cost and I can safely assume that patients paid about $50 for in-person healthcare on top of the price of gas. The third study looked specifically at three areas, quality of life, healthcare resources used, and overall cost. Noel et al., found that using virtual healthcare there was a notable decrease at 6 months in daily care, reducing costs to the patient. They also found that fewer patients receiving virtual care had fewer emergency room visits, as well as visits to urgent care clinics. They also found an increase in overall patient satisfaction at 3- and 6-month follow-ups, which increases the mental health benefits of virtual care. Studies two and three do not specifically mention numbers when talking about decreasing costs. They use strong language like significantly and dramatically stating that there is a difference big enough to support the idea of ​​virtual healthcare. By having a wide variety between practices two and three being treated with, it can be said that there is a reduction in costs for patients who have access to virtual healthcare. Studies two and three also look at the benefits to patients' overall quality of health, ranging from surveys of satisfaction with their overall treatment to how they would rate their quality of life. All three studies are unique because they look at a different subgroup for their studies. Representing a variety of clientele, one can see that across the spectrum there is a cost benefit to patients. All three studies used numerical measures to indicate these cost benefits, as well as sampling larger portions of people at one time to show meaningful data. By having control groups of 30 or more, the studies themselves have gained reputations for having a larger sample size. Randomization was another key factor in the studies and randomization provided authenticity to the study because it eliminated bias as no one could predetermine who would be in which group. Having more than one group receiving different treatment times created a sense of validity because it gave the researchers something to compare their data to and check against their hypotheses. In the ever-changing, technology-driven global world, the reality of virtual healthcare is becoming ever more present. The research presented demonstrates how virtual healthcare is cost-effective for the patient. The relevance is evident across the digital world and for patients living far from accessible healthcare. This is important because these studies were conducted because if technological trends continue, healthcare must move with the times and meet patient needs. Continuing, as medicine itself is constantly changing, the way it is practiced should also be changed. This goes without saying that there will always be times when it will be necessary to go to the doctor, but if a person can doctor in a safe and secure environment from the comfort of their own home, the patient should be able to do so with current technology. However, patients need to be aware of virtual health communities that play an important role in virtual healthcare. Having a community where patients can connect, ask for advice, and find comfort in their health is a great benefit of virtual health. However, it happens without caution. There is a need to raise public awareness about counterfeit drugs and the websites they target.