Kaitlyn M Yim1, Aleksandra G Florek1, Dennis H Oh2, Karen McKoy3, April W Armstrong4. 1. 1 Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, California. 2. 2 Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado , Aurora, Colorado. 3. 3 Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco , San Francisco, California. 4. 4 Lahey Clinic Department of Dermatology, Harvard Medical School , Burlington, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Teledermatology is rapidly advancing in the United States. The last comprehensive survey of U.S. teledermatology programs was conducted in 2011. INTRODUCTION: This article provides an update regarding the state of teledermatology programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Active programs were identified and surveyed from November 2014 to January 2017. Findings regarding practice settings, consult volumes, payment methods, and delivery modalities were compared to those from the 2011 survey. Findings from the Veterans Affairs (VA) were reported as an aggregate. RESULTS: There were 40 active nongovernmental programs, amounting to a 48% increase and 30% discontinuation rate over five years. Academia remained the most common practice setting (50%). Median annual consultation volume was comparable with 263 consultations, but maximum annual consultation volume increased (range: 20-20,000). The most frequent payment method was self-pay (53%). Store-and-forward continued to be the most common delivery modality. In Fiscal Year 2016, the VA System consisted of 62 consultation sites and performed a total of 101,507 consultations. DISCUSSION: The limitations of this study were that consult volume and payment methods were not available from all programs. CONCLUSION: U.S. teledermatology programs have increased in number and annual consultation volume. Academia is the most prevalent practice setting, and self-pay is the dominant accepted payment method. Innovative platforms and the provision of direct-to-patient care are changing the practice of teledermatology.
BACKGROUND: Teledermatology is rapidly advancing in the United States. The last comprehensive survey of U.S. teledermatology programs was conducted in 2011. INTRODUCTION: This article provides an update regarding the state of teledermatology programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Active programs were identified and surveyed from November 2014 to January 2017. Findings regarding practice settings, consult volumes, payment methods, and delivery modalities were compared to those from the 2011 survey. Findings from the Veterans Affairs (VA) were reported as an aggregate. RESULTS: There were 40 active nongovernmental programs, amounting to a 48% increase and 30% discontinuation rate over five years. Academia remained the most common practice setting (50%). Median annual consultation volume was comparable with 263 consultations, but maximum annual consultation volume increased (range: 20-20,000). The most frequent payment method was self-pay (53%). Store-and-forward continued to be the most common delivery modality. In Fiscal Year 2016, the VA System consisted of 62 consultation sites and performed a total of 101,507 consultations. DISCUSSION: The limitations of this study were that consult volume and payment methods were not available from all programs. CONCLUSION: U.S. teledermatology programs have increased in number and annual consultation volume. Academia is the most prevalent practice setting, and self-pay is the dominant accepted payment method. Innovative platforms and the provision of direct-to-patient care are changing the practice of teledermatology.
Authors: Robin H Wang; John S Barbieri; Harrison P Nguyen; Robert Stavert; Howard P Forman; Jean L Bolognia; Carrie L Kovarik Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Neha N Jariwala; Christopher K Snider; Shivan J Mehta; J Kyle Armstrong; Aaron Smith-McLallen; Junko Takeshita; Carrie L Kovarik; Jules B Lipoff Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: April W Armstrong; Adam R Ford; Cindy J Chambers; Emanual Maverakis; Cory A Dunnick; Mary-Margaret Chren; Joel M Gelfand; Caitlin M Gibbons; Brittany M Gibbons; Christianne J Lane Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2018-11-24 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Saro H Armenian; Lanie Lindenfeld; Aleksi Iukuridze; Meagan Echevarria; Samantha Bebel; Catherine Coleman; Ryotaro Nakamura; Farah Abdullah; Badri Modi; Kevin C Oeffinger; Karen M Emmons; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Alan C Geller Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 4.430