State of Teledermatology Programs in the United States
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Background: Teledermatology programs in the United States have evolved over the past several decades. No systematic survey of teledermatology programs in the United States is available in peer-reviewed literature.
Objective: To provide up-to-date information regarding the state of teledermatology programs in the United States.
Methods: Active U.S. teledermatology programs were surveyed in 2011 with regards to practice models, clinical volume, and payment methods. These findings were compared with those from 2003.
Results: By January 2012, 37 teledermatology programs were active in the United States. Store-and-forward teledermatology was the most frequent delivery modality offered by 30 (81%) of the programs. The majority of the programs were based at academic institutions (49%), followed by Veterans Administration hospitals (27%), private practice (16%), and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) (8%). The majority of programs (67%) provided services to their home state only, whereas the rest also served additional U.S. states or abroad. The median number of consultations per program was 309 (range, 5-6500) in 2011. The most frequent payer sources were private payers, followed by self-pay, Medicaid, Medicare, and HMOs. Since 2003, with the confirmed discontinuation of 24 previously active programs, the total number of active teledermatology programs in 2011 was 60% of that in 2003. However, the annual consult volume per program nearly doubled for the sustainable programs in 2011.
Limitations: Itemized billing information was not uniformly available from all programs.
Conclusion: The turnover in teledermatology programs is relatively constant, with an increase in consult volume for sustainable programs. Store-and-forward is the dominant modality of delivery, while hybrid technology model is emerging.
The Past, the Present and the Future of Teledermatology: A Narrative Review.
Tommasino N, Megna M, Cacciapuoti S, Villani A, Martora F, Ruggiero A Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2024; 17:717-723.
PMID: 38529172 PMC: 10962464. DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S462799.
Shao K, Feng H J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022; 15(7):16-22.
PMID: 35942012 PMC: 9345197.
Jobbagy A, Kiss N, Meznerics F, Farkas K, Plazar D, Bozsanyi S Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(5).
PMID: 35270391 PMC: 8910370. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052699.
Teledermatology: current indications and considerations for future use.
Beer J, Hadeler E, Calume A, Gitlow H, Nouri K Arch Dermatol Res. 2020; 313(1):11-15.
PMID: 33074356 PMC: 7570421. DOI: 10.1007/s00403-020-02145-3.
Don D, Koempel J, Fisher L, Wee C, Osterbauer B Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2020; 130(2):125-132.
PMID: 32627572 PMC: 8327855. DOI: 10.1177/0003489420938820.