Blog

Second opinions are becoming an important component for patient healthcare. A recent study by the Mayo Clinic identified that as many as 88 percent of second opinions either differ to refine the original patient diagnosis [1]. This occurs more often than not when the physician rendering the second opinion has specialized expertise in the field in question and has the benefit of careful review of the patient’s prior complete set of clinical data.

Hospitals and subspecialists are being called on, now more than ever, to provide their expertise to patients without an in -person face-to-face visit.  With the need for social distancing and stay at home orders, patients seeking second opinions are looking for the best medical expertise they can get without having to stray too far from home.

For patients in more rural areas or for more complex and critical cases, sometimes urban or even regional centers are where that expertise is more likely located. Traveling, sometimes long distances, to one of these facilities without first knowing whether they are ready and capable of treating that condition is often not advised. Instead, patients would prefer to communicate their case information in advance and only travel if the facility expects the visit to be advisable.

Hospitals seeking to expand their reach and perhaps even to increase revenue are heeding the call.  But to do so requires a solution that captures patients' clinical information, performs video consults and enables them to communicate with the patient, his or her referring physician and other health care experts both within ad outside of their own facility. Choosing which to use is a challenge.

Hospitals need to choose whether to acquire their own software to expose their unique expertise and brand to a larger audience or become a recipient for a third party network of specialists that refer cases to the hospital.  The decision usually comes down to whether the hospital wants to control its own process and outsource the administration of these cases or whether this service will be part of the hospitals core offering.

Below are some of the considerations for which approach to select.

In the midst of this pandemic, now is perhaps the worst time for rural hospitals to be closing. The COVID-19 health emergency has put their already shaky existence at even greater risk. With the government calling for all non-emergency procedures to be delayed, rural hospitals everywhere are encountering extreme financial strain.

As providers adopt Telehealth solutions as safe alternatives to in-person visits, many are wondering whether coverage for these services has changed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Prior to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency in the US, the popularity of Telehealth – remote electronic communications between physicians, other healthcare providers and patients - had been somewhat limited. The limited use of electronic patient engagement was in large part due to restrictive reimbursement for those services by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS).

As a responsible physician, you may worry about the potential effects of giving your patients electronic access to their medical images. However, many of these fears aren’t justified by the facts. If you’re worried about the dangers of giving your patients access to their medical images, the following may help to put your mind at ease.

Let’s take a look at the risks and benefits of sharing medical images with patients: