Telehealth as Gatekeeper: Policy Implications for Geography and Scope of Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why, despite enthusiasm, is telehealth still a relatively minor part of healthcare delivery in many health systems? We examined two less-considered policy issues: (1) the scope of services being offered by telehealth and how this matches existing arrangements for insured services; and (2) how the ability of telehealth services to minimize barriers associated with geography is dealt with in a system organized and financed on geographical boundaries. Fifty-three semistructured interviews with key stakeholders involved in the management of 43 Canadian telehealth programs were conducted. In addition, quantitative activity data were analyzed from 33 telehealth programs. Two telehealth approaches emerged: telephone-based (N = 3), and video-conferencing-based (N = 40). Most programs reflected, rather than superceded, existing geographical boundaries; with the technology being used, the videoconferencing models imposed significant barriers to unfettered access by outlying communities because they required sites to acquire expensive technology, be affiliated with an existing telehealth network, and schedule visits in advance. In consequence, much activity was administrative and educational, rather than clinical, and often extended beyond the set of mandatory insured services. Despite high hopes that telehealth would improve access to care for rural/remote areas, gatekeeping inherent in certain telehealth systems imposes barriers to unfettered use by rural/remote areas, although it does facilitate other valued activities. Policy approaches are needed to promote a closer match between the expectations for telehealth and the realities reflected by many existing models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".