In last week’s Telehealth Tuesday, I tackled the myth that telehealth drives up healthcare costs, showing how expanded access doesn’t necessarily mean higher spending.
This week, let’s explore another common misconception oftentimes perpetuated by politicians:
We should be able to pay less for virtual care.
While the argument may sound intuitive, it overlooks the transformative and cost-saving potential of telehealth while ignoring the obvious and hidden costs of providing care at a distance.
In fact, there are strong reasons why virtual care might deserve equal — or even greater — payment compared to traditional in-person visits. Especially when considering the numerous
Additionally, virtual care often provides enhanced services like remote monitoring and asynchronous communication, which require significant time and resources. These aren’t just add-ons; they’re integral to improving patient outcomes. Isn’t that what we’re ultimately paying for?
Why Virtual Care Is Worth More
Virtual care isn’t just a substitute for in-person visits — it’s a distinct and, in many ways, superior mode of healthcare delivery. It removes barriers like travel and missed work for patients, creating more equitable access. Clinicians, in turn, benefit from fewer no-shows or same-day cancellations, stronger patient engagement, and better outcomes.
Patient Satisfaction: For most patients, telehealth provides unparalleled convenience. With the ability to attend appointments from home or work, patients avoid long travel times, missed work hours, or the logistical challenges of finding childcare. This convenience often results in higher satisfaction ratings compared to traditional care.
Equitable Access: For underserved populations — such as those in rural areas or with limited mobility — telehealth levels the playing field. It brings care directly to patients who might otherwise face significant obstacles in accessing healthcare, ensuring a more inclusive system.
Cost of Care Savings: Moreover, telehealth can lead to measurable system-wide savings. When looking beyond video visits, other virtual care modalities including remote physiological monitoring (RPM) can prevent costly utilization including urgent care visits, emergency room visits or hospital admissions and readmissions. Achieving these outcomes may seem to cost more upfront, but they pay dividends in the long run by improving efficiency and patient well-being.
To whit: The National Rural Health Association (NRHA) just published a policy brief on telehealth that states: “Telehealth has demonstrated significant cost savings for patients, with average savings ranging from $19 to $121 per telehealth visit.” due to an “avoidance of unnecessary emergency department visits”.
Why Some Politicians May Believe Virtual Care Should Cost Less
My assumption is that some policymakers argue that virtual care should cost less because they are under the impression that the clinicians would no longer require physical office spaces.
On the surface, this perspective may appear to make sense, but only when considering virtual-only providers (such as the well-known Teladoc) who exclusively operate online without maintaining physical facilities.
However, all of the clients we are working with are hybrid care delivery organizations with brick-and-mortar operations in addition to their virtual care services.
Hybrid Costs: It’s almost too obvious to state, but clinics offering hybrid care still bear the costs of physical infrastructure, including rent, utilities, and staff. Virtual care is an addition to their service offerings, not a replacement, which means they must invest in additional technology for telehealth while maintaining the same physical resources for in-person visits. This dual investment creates financial strain, not savings.
Operational Realities: Even for virtual-only providers, eliminating physical spaces doesn’t mean costs disappear. Advanced telehealth platforms, cybersecurity measures, and compliance requirements represent significant ongoing expenses. For hybrid systems, these costs are compounded by the need to integrate virtual and in-person workflows seamlessly.
Equity Considerations: Hybrid care models also play a crucial role in addressing diverse patient needs. Virtual care enhances access, but in-person visits remain essential for many patients. Reducing payments for telehealth risks destabilizing this balance, potentially limiting patients’ choices and access to comprehensive care.



The Danger of Cheapening Telehealth
Here’s the real risk: undervaluing telehealth discourages its adoption and stifles the adoption of innovation that has proven to lower the cost of care.
If providers are forced to accept lower payments for virtual services, they’re less likely to invest in the tools and training required to deliver exceptional care. This short-sighted approach could limit access to telehealth for the very populations who benefit most from it—rural communities, underserved areas, and those with mobility challenges.
Instead of treating telehealth as a discount version of healthcare, we should recognize it as a critical driver of equitable and effective care. The question isn’t, “Why should virtual care cost the same or more?” It’s, “Why wouldn’t we invest in something that delivers better outcomes and greater access?”
The Virtual-Only Exclusion
However, I can buy into the argument that virtual-only providers without an integration into a brick-and-mortar practice should indeed be paid less for the same visit as an in-person visit or a virtual visit in a hybrid clinic. This perspective is based on the distinct operational differences between virtual-only and hybrid care models.
Lack of Physical Overhead: Virtual-only providers do not bear the financial burden of maintaining physical spaces and staff. This significantly reduces their overhead costs compared to hybrid clinics, which must sustain both in-person and virtual infrastructures simultaneously.
Simplified Operations: Virtual-only practices typically streamline their services around telehealth delivery. Without the complexities of managing in-person workflows, such as check-ins, exam room preparations, and on-site equipment maintenance, their operational costs are often lower. This efficiency could justify a lower payment model for their services.
Limitations in Scope: Virtual-only providers may also offer a narrower range of services compared to hybrid clinics. For example, they often cannot perform physical exams, administer treatments, or conduct in-person diagnostics. This narrower scope of care might not warrant the same level of reimbursement as the comprehensive offerings of a hybrid clinic.
That said, the argument for lower payments must still be balanced with considerations of value. Virtual-only providers play a vital role in expanding access to care, particularly for underserved populations, and their contributions to the healthcare ecosystem should not be undervalued.
Conclusion: Pay More, Gain More
It’s time to stop thinking of telehealth as a cheaper alternative. Payment parity ensures that virtual care continues to evolve and thrive. By properly valuing telehealth, we can support the innovation and infrastructure needed to make it a cornerstone of modern healthcare. Paying more for telehealth isn’t just fair; it’s a smart investment into a better healthcare system.
Instead of treating telehealth as a discount version of healthcare, we should recognize it as a critical driver of equitable and effective care. The question isn’t, “Why should virtual care cost the same or more?” It’s, “Why wouldn’t we invest in something that delivers better outcomes and greater access?”
What are your thoughts on the value and cost of virtual care? Join the conversation and share your perspective in the comments below. Let’s discuss how we can balance innovation, access, and fairness in telehealth. 😊💡📢








To receive articles like these in your Inbox every week, you can subscribe to Christian’s Telehealth Tuesday Newsletter.
Christian Milaster and his team optimize Telehealth Services for health systems and physician practices. Christian is the Founder and President of Ingenium Digital Health Advisors where he and his expert consortium partner with healthcare leaders to enable the delivery of extraordinary care.
Contact Christian by phone or text at 657-464-3648, via email, or video chat.