Telemedicine has been a pandemic benefit. Don’t let it recede with the virus. l Expert Opinion

Nearly all aspects of our lives have been upended by COVID-19. Societal changes were originally aimed at reducing viral transmission, but many unexpectedly offered other benefits. As we cautiously approach a post-pandemic future, however, we may find ourselves reverting to old habits.

In health care, this is seen with telemedicine, which is slowly receding. Social distancing guidelines and the need to prioritize COVID-19 care led to the promotion of telemedicine as an improvised, temporary solution for non-acute patients. It is interesting, though, that subsequent medical literature has noted countless benefits of telemedicine in terms of costs, outcomes, and the experiences of both patients and providers — frequently to the surprise of leaders in the field.

Pre-pandemic, telemedicine was slowly entering select institutions including Jefferson Health, which has since become a national leader in telehealth education and research. COVID-19 greatly accelerated the pace of this transition. Jefferson’s daily telemedicine visits rose from 50 to 3,000 during the pandemic’s peak. Nationally, one-third of medical visits occurred virtually in mid-2020 and 95% of centers adopted telehealth capabilities.

With telemedicine, patients reduce travel expenses and lost wages due to time away from work, while physicians see more patients and reduce physical overhead costs. Patients say they have a better experience, preferring the unparalleled convenience and comfort of home without the stress surrounding the doctor’s office. Moreover, patients can obtain top-quality care no matter where they live by virtually visiting leading academic centers for second opinions on complex treatment options.

Today, although we remain wary of a new COVID surge, society is rapidly reopening. Accordingly, telemedicine usage has dropped as providers revert to in-person care. This is understandable as their entire training and clinical experience, save for the last two years, has been in this format.

Nevertheless, as Judd Hollander, Jefferson’s associate dean for strategic health initiatives and driver of telehealth, explained in an interview, “for the vast majority of office visits, patients aren’t even being examined. They go into the office and have a discussion. There’s no reason to go into the office for that.” Indeed, the CDC reports that only 7% of office visits are for acute injury, while 93% are primarily conversation-based. Even initial acute-care visits often do not yield a resolution based on physical findings; instead, patients are typically referred for further testing. Hence, such visits can easily be done virtually.

Of course, in-person medicine cannot completely go away, and physical care is necessary for myriad conditions and procedures. Moreover, some patients may simply prefer an in-person interaction, and they should not be restricted from this option. Still, telemedicine should continue to be available for those who prefer it.

So what is stopping mass telehealth adoption? Too often, it may be inertia: Well-intentioned physicians simply believe in-person care benefits patients and are returning to their comfort zones. This means patients — a category that has or will include all of us — are in the best position to advocate for telemedicine. Better informing providers and patients alike about telehealth capabilities can help build upon the progress we made since 2020.

As medical students, we have found that telemedicine education is nearly nonexistent, with under 1% of our training involving telehealth. While telemedicine may decline from its peak of one-third of visits, modern physician training should mirror the rate of telehealth usage in the real world. Granted, medical schools have profoundly evolved in recent years, moving toward a patient-focused model that emphasizes critical thinking and emotional intelligence over rote memorization. This has paid dividends in patient experiences, but if the model does not evolve further, newly trained providers will find that medicine has left them behind.

Teaching future physicians how to communicate effectively over a screen, creatively conduct physical exams remotely, avoid miscommunication, protect patient privacy, and utilize novel medical devices and monitoring technologies is essential to propelling telehealth. This education should also be translated to existing providers in the form of continuing medical education credits.

In short, telemedicine holds numerous advantages, but the current health-care system is not ready to embrace its mass adoption. As patients, we must advocate to make providers aware that we want the option of telemedicine, giving us the freedom to obtain quality care that best fits our needs.

Yash Shah and Nicholas W. Kieran are students at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University. They help lead Physician Executive Leadership, a health-care leadership program that addresses emerging topics in medical practice, including health-care economics, quality, and policy.