In this story we learn about a new concept in urgent care: checkups by teleconference. This technology purports to fill gaps in healthcare, providing convenient care for minor ailments. With long waits at emergency rooms, this concept is very appealing. However, this story fails to describe the evidence to support the claim that this type of care delivery is as safe and effective as traditional care.
The medical ethics expert points out several potential harms of the technology, such as mistaking a major condition for a minor one or ignoring true emergencies. The story mentions emergency room and urgent care centers as the alternatives. The story should have provided some more detail about the pros and cons of the different options. The story quotes two sources, the physician who is affiliated with the teleconferencing company and an independent medical ethicist. The story could have provided some additional perspectives, such as from a doctor who works in urgent care settings.
Most importantly, the story does not provide any evidence to support the claim that these centers provide care that is at least as safe or as good quality as regular visits. Also, the story does not attempt to quantify the benefits of the technology nor does it state where these centers are located and how common they are.
The story does mention that the co-pay of an ED visit is $100 compared to $65 for the teleconference. However, ED co-pays vary widely depending on insurance.
The story does not attempt to quantify the benefits.
The medical ethics expert points out several potential harms, such as mistaking a major condition for a minor one or ignoring true emergencies.
The story does not provide any evidence to support the claim that these centers provide care that is at least as good quality as regular visits.
Because this story does not deal with a specific disease, disease mongering is not applicable.
The story quotes two sources, the physician who is affiliated with the teleconferencing company and an idependent medical ethicist. The story could have provided some additional perspectives, such as doctors who work in urgent care settings. The balance of the story would have been better if it addressed such issues as the percentage of Americans without insurance, a list of appropriate conditions that would be potentially handled in this manner, and other points of view.
The story mentions emergency room and urgent care centers as the alternatives. The story should have provided some more detail about the pros and cons of the different options.
The story does not state where these centers are located and how common they are.
The story clearly states that this is new technology.
Although the network turned to an independent medical ethicist for his perspective, the story still felt, for the most part, like an infomercial for a niche market area that is being introduced. Nonetheless, we can’t be sure if the story relied largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.