Cost minimization analysis of a store-and-forward teledermatology consult system.

The aim of this study was to perform a cost minimization analysis of store-and-forward teledermatology compared to a conventional dermatology referral process (usual care). In a Department of Defense (DoD) setting, subjects were randomized to either a teledermatology consult or usual care. Accrued healthcare utilization recorded over a 4-month period included clinic visits, teledermatology visits, laboratories, preparations, procedures, radiological tests, and medications. Direct medical care costs were estimated by combining utilization data with Medicare reimbursement rates and wholesale drug prices. The indirect cost of productivity loss for seeking treatment was also included in the analysis using an average labor rate. Total and average costs were compared between groups. Teledermatology patients incurred $103,043 in total direct costs ($294 average), while usual-care patients incurred $98,365 ($283 average). However, teledermatology patients only incurred $16,359 ($47 average) in lost productivity cost while usual-care patients incurred $30,768 ($89 average). In total, teledermatology patients incurred $119,402 ($340 average) and usual-care patients incurred $129,133 ($372 average) in costs. From the economic perspective of the DoD, store-and-forward teledermatology was a cost-saving strategy for delivering dermatology care compared to conventional consultation methods when productivity loss cost is taken into consideration.

Store-and-forward teledermatology results in similar clinical outcomes to conventional clinic-based care.

We compared the clinical outcomes after store-and-forward teledermatology with those following conventional clinic-based consultation. Subjects were randomized to either usual care (a conventional clinic-based dermatology appointment) or a store-and-forward teledermatology consultation. All subjects received baseline digital imaging and re-imaging was performed four months later. A total of 776 subjects were approached for inclusion, and a total of 508 image sets were reviewed, 236 in usual care and 272 in teledermatology. The image sets from both study arms were used to make clinical outcome assessments between baseline and four months. A dermatologist who was blinded to the randomization rated the clinical outcomes using a three-point clinical course rating scale (1 = improved, 2 = no change, 3 = worse). In the usual care group, 65% were rated as 'improved', 32% were rated as 'no change' and 3% were rated as 'worse'. For teledermatology, 64% were rated as 'improved', 33% as 'no change' and 4% as 'worse'. The results of the study indicate that store-and-forward teledermatology consultations produce similar clinical outcomes when compared with conventional clinic-based consultations.