Costs to the Medicare Benefits Schedule for general practitioner consultations: A time-series analysis

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic was a catalyst for the introduction of additional telehealth funding (telehealth item numbers) for general practitioner (GP) consultations through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) in Australia. This study evaluated the impact of telehealth funding on costs to the MBS for GP consultations from January 2017 to December 2021. An interrupted time series analysis assessed MBS costs (initial and monthly growth) for GP consultations (in-person, videoconference, telephone) before and after additional telehealth item numbers were introduced. From January 2017 to February 2020, total MBS costs for GP consultations were, on average, $545 million per month compared to $592 million per month from March 2020 to December 2021. There was an initial cost increase of approximately $39 million in the first month after additional telehealth funding was introduced ( p = 0.0001). Afterwards, there was no significant change in monthly costs ( p = 0.539). The introduction of additional MBS telehealth funding increased overall MBS costs for GP consultations. This increased cost for GP telehealth services could save costs to society if it translates into improved continuity of care, decreased hospitalisations, reduced productivity losses and improved patient outcomes. Future policy reform should incorporate a cost–benefit analysis to determine if increased MBS costs for GP consultations are a good investment.

Disruption to diabetes and hypertension care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America and the Caribbean and mitigation approaches: A Scoping Review

“…104 Additionally, HbA1c control rate of remote and in-person care was similar in urban settings (63% vs 65%), but lower in rural areas (56% vs 63%). 105–107 Other studies indicated that rural areas face more barriers to engagement with virtual care options than urban areas. 108–110 In contrast, some studies found that telemedicine increased access and utilization for rural residents and other underserved populations in Canada, 106 Saudi Arabia, 91 and other countries.…”

General practitioner preferences for telehealth consultations in Australia: a pilot survey and discrete choice experiment

“…A UK study reported that while advances in digital technologies and telehealth policies (eg, available funding) have been made, many GPs have issues with videoconferencing usability and functionality (Greenhalgh et al, 2022). GPs often report that telephone is easier and more convenient to deliver than videoconference consultations (Rush et al, 2018, Greenhalgh et al, 2022, De Guzman et al, 2022a. Similarly, this study highlighted the ease of delivering a telephone consultation, as less resources are required than an in-person or videoconference consultation.…”

“…, 2022 , De Guzman et al. , 2022 a). Similarly, this study highlighted the ease of delivering a telephone consultation, as less resources are required than an in-person or videoconference consultation.…”

“…The visual component of videoconference consultations has been shown to increase diagnostic accuracy, improve patient to clinician rapport and potentially enable higher quality of care (Snoswell et al, 2021a, Rush et al, 2018, Donaghy et al, 2019. However, GPs have consistently used telephone, which has led to concerns that telehealth services cannot achieve high-quality care (Greenhalgh et al, 2022, De Guzman et al, 2022a, Scott et al, 2021. Some GPs have also been reluctant to embrace telehealth models of care, even though there are many advantages for providing these services (eg, greater convenience and less burden for the patient, timely access to care) (Scott et al, 2021).…”

“…GPs who have not received telehealth training are usually less likely to change their practice towards telehealth use (Thomas et al, 2022). Given that GPs highly value quality of care, consideration towards the incorporation of value-based care in future funding reforms will be important (De Guzman et al, 2022a).…”