Healthcare is a right, not a privilege. In the United States and abroad the healthcare industry is evolving. The medical industry is modernizing, and with it goes healthcare reform. The product of this modernization of the medical industry is called telemedicine. This is the use of video conferencing to connect physicians with patients who are not physically in the doctor's office. It is becoming increasingly evident that telemedicine is beneficial to the healthcare industry because of its ability to connect physicians and patients around the United States and the world, its cost-effectiveness, and because of the fact that it serves as a compliment, not a replacement, to current healthcare practices.

Global connectedness is a pertinent issue in medicine today. Physicians worldwide are realizing its importance in treating patients with various ailments, and patients in general, because of the shortage of physicians. According to a recent study, "the United States faces a potential physician shortage of as many as 52,000" (Frist). This shortage is alarming and the U.S. healthcare industry is taking steps to mitigate this problem. The most promising solution is telemedicine. Through multiple studies, it has been proven that telemedicine creates a stronger ease of communication between patients and physicians worldwide.

 Patients who suffer from rare diseases and ailments are now able to speak to specialists in other parts of the United States, and even the world. Furthermore, the cost of speaking to these physicians is far more affordable than an in-person visit. This technology is not designed to eliminate in-person doctor's visits, but rather create an avenue for patients to receive certain types of medical care that they previously simply would not have had access to. With the implementation of telemedicine, scientists argue, the scope of patients who receive healthcare would broaden exponentially and propel the United States forward in the healthcare industry. The real goal of medical care is to provide the best care in an efficient manner. Healthcare would simply not be effective if doctors were not aware of their field. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of millions of diseases in the world and specialists for these diseases are few and far between. This is where telemedicine has the potential to transform the medical world and connect the globe. A sick patient who is dying of a rare disease now can be put in contact with a physician who specializes in that disease. A life can be saved with the incorporation of this medical treatment. Not only one life, but thousands, even hundreds of thousands. 

Telemedicine is a growing industry.  According to a report conducted by David Groneberg, "the global telemedicine market reached $11.6 billion in 2011, and is expected to triple to $27.3 billion" (Groneberg). This substantial growth has allowed physicians and patients to connect more around the United States and in the world. Patients are now able to receive medical information from top-of-the-line medical experts from around the world. They are also now able to receive life saving information from a specialist. A mother from Santa Clara, California can video conference with a multiple sclerosis specialist in Copenhagen, Denmark. The global aspect of telemedicine is unmatched and its uncanny ability to save hundreds of thousands of lives is unique.

 The topic of telemedicine and its incorporation into the healthcare system is viewed as beneficial by some individuals and injurious by others. Telemedicine uses video conferencing to connect patients with their physicians while they are not in the doctor's office. This is a relatively new idea, which utilizes technology and integrates it into the healthcare system. Non-supporters of telemedicine claim that it will decrease the quality of medical care, while increasing our reliance on technology. Certain individuals believe that with the incorporation of telemedicine, face-to-face consultations and personal relationships with doctors will become extinct. This is not true, as Robert Frist, a leading neurologist at Washington University, states because "telehealth is gaining ground as an alternative to urgent care or the emergency department for more minor concerns like ear infections and colds," or if a patient is traveling and needs a consultation with their physician.  Video conferences are discussed as only being used to ask a doctor about a common cold, or minor ailment that does not require an in-person inspection. Frist discusses the usefulness and convenience to someone who is traveling and cannot physically be in the doctor's office. 

 This new idea, telemedicine, will transform the healthcare industry for the better by creating a cost-effective and high quality compliment to traditional healthcare. Countless non-supporters state that telemedicine should not be an alternative to healthcare.  The reality is that telemedicine has not been created as an alternative to in-person doctor's visits, but rather as a compliment. Through multiple studies it has been proven that telemedicine creates a stronger ease of communication between patients and physicians worldwide. Patients who suffer from rare diseases and ailments are now able to speak to specialists in other parts of the United States, and even the world. Along with this added benefit, the cost of speaking to these physicians is far more affordable than an in-person visit. This technology is not designed to eliminate in-person doctor's visits, but rather create an avenue for patients to receive certain types of medical care that they previously would simply not have access to. With the implementation of telemedicine, scientists argue, the scope of patients who receive healthcare would broaden exponentially and propel the United States forward in the healthcare industry. 

Affordability is a critical factor in terms of how often people will use a certain item. With healthcare it becomes exceedingly important to manage the affordability and cost-effectiveness of medical care in order to sustain a population. Adversaries claim that with the incorporation of telemedicine, costs to purchase the technology necessarily will be high and debt caused by these purchases will be insurmountable.  An example of why this is untrue is that "For families of a child who had been in the neonatal ICU, the hospital installs these home units at a cost of $2,000 per patient, allowing the hospital to discharge the baby one week earlier. Considering a NICU stay costs about $5,000 per day, the $2,000 telemed system replaces $35,000 in hospital costs, per patient $5,000 x 7 days" (Cerrato). Telemedicine is an investment, but one that has been proven time and time again to help individuals, by being cost-effective for both the hospital and the patient. No longer will a mother not being to take her sick baby to the hospital, or an elderly man who desperately needs medical advice, but cannot afford it, be forced to suffer without medical attention. 

Medical attention will not require a wait and will also be more inexpensive because "live video consultations with doctors will be available 24 hours a day, who can offer advice, prescribe medicine, and suggest follow-up care" (Agus 91). These video conferences can occur at any time and can provide life saving care and information. Before this technology patients had to wait exceedingly long times and pay exceedingly high prices for in-person doctor's visits. With telemedicine the wait time is eliminated and the possibility to speak with any physician who has access to the internet around the world becomes a certainty. 

In the United States healthcare can be extraordinarily expensive. Thousands of people do not see their doctors because they simply cannot afford to. Thousands of lives go unsaved because people are afraid of accumulating hospital debt. In a nation as great as the United States, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, everyone who needs medical care should be able to afford it. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege. The solution to unaffordable healthcare is telemedicine. 

The last time I went to the doctor's office was August, 2015. Everything was going smoothly until my doctor attempted to pull out my chart on his iPad, a chart that was no longer on paper, but on an online database. The EMR, Electronic Medical Records, were not accessible because the system was down. My doctor was baffled because all of my prior testing, shots that I had taken, and glucose measurements were missing. He essentially had to treat me as though he had not ever met me before. 

I was shocked about what had transpired and asked him if he really liked being forced to use his iPad. He told me that on most days, when it works, technology and EMR's are a blessing, but the days that the system is down are the days that he cannot stand working through an online database. Soon after I read an article in Fortune Magazine entitled "The Doctor Will See You Now," written by Dr. David B. Agus. Today, well over 80% of medical data is kept on an electronic database. The article discussed the benefits and drawbacks of technology in healthcare, as well as the advantages and the disadvantages of the emergence of telemedicine in society.

The article speaks about the resistance against the implementation of telemedicine by stating that "there are multiple barriers to the widespread uptake of telemedicine, but the most prohibitive are regulatory policies at the state level" (Agus 45). After reading the article that initially highlighted he drawbacks of telemedicine, I soon realized why these issues were occurring. Since telemedicine is a new industry, there is still only a small allocation of funds for it. The problems that I had at the doctor's office that day were caused by a faulty wifi router, a miniscule problem with an easy solution. I soon learned that this router was out of date and my physician told me that the government was being sparse with the distribution of funds because of these regulatory policies. These funds, which were supposed to be directed toward electronics and the incorporation of telemedicine, were being distributed elsewhere. Agus then discusses why healthcare is so resistant to telemedicine and highlights that this is because some states are afraid that virtual care will not meet the same standards as in-person care. Agus does his best to convey to the reader that telemedicine will be required to meet precisely the same standards as an in-person doctor's visit. 

The most critical aspect of the incorporation of telemedicine is that it is intended to compliment current medical practices, not to replace them. Adversaries of telemedicine claim that because it is less expensive, the quality of care will deteriorate. This is not true. The cost-effectiveness of telemedicine is simply so people who have previously never been to the doctor's office, because it is too expensive, will now be able to go. These people finally will have access to the healthcare and medical attention that they need. In an article by Julia Collins, a leading medical research at Johns Hopkins, the reader can see how telemedicine should be considered an addition to medical practices that are utilized today, and not a replacement. This is a concern for certain physicians because they believe their jobs will be stripped from them, when in reality, "telemedicine will allow physicians to further improve job security because patients will be more content with the medical care that they receive" (Van Gurp, Jelle). 

A separate article, composed by B.K Wiederhold, discussed the use of telemedicine as a tool to prevent illnesses. Patients were described as responding in a positive way to the wristbands that monitored their vitals, sleeping patterns, and their EKG. The author, B.K. Wiederhold, emphasized the fact that the most useful ways to utilize the technology in modern medicine is to use it for prevention. Countless studies were shown where illnesses and diseases were diagnosed by doctor's much sooner because of the technology, even something as simple as the wristband, which has led to a "140 % increase in the detection of diseases in the human body" (Weiderhold 475). This technology associated with telemedicine, which is cheaper than traditional healthcare, has been proven to be more effective in detecting diseases that traditional care. However, researchers and advocates of telemedicine are not claiming to want to replace traditional healthcare practices, but rather to add on to it using new tools such as the wristbands and other technology. 

Another crucial point is one of universal healthcare and the debate over it, which is extremely passionate at times, and how through telemedicine, virtually every person worldwide can have access to telemedicine. It is also more affordable than a face-to-face consult. The technological advancements do not stop at wristbands, and include new technologies, such as games that work in improving spatial relations and memory, especially in the elderly.

Many non-supporters state that telemedicine should not be an alternative to healthcare.  The reality is that telemedicine has not been created as an alternative to in-person doctor's visits, but rather a compliment. Next the inaccuracy of a telemedicine diagnosis is addressed, based on the inability of physicians to properly diagnose patients over a video conference. Doctors need to see patients in-person to treat certain conditions, and become well acquainted with the patient so they can accurately see what is wrong and go about the proper way of treating the ailment. 

Finally, the topic of lowered quality of care administered to telemedicine patients is discussed. Shelley Brown states to the readers that "physicians are not able to form connections with patients which leads to a lower quality of medical treatment and care" (Brown). According to Brown, this lowered quality of care for patients will lead to the demise of healthcare. In a different article by Rose Hoban, a researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, the possibility of telemedicine and how it is viewed by everyone is addressed. The government supports the idea, but doctors are opposed. They believe that if a patient is not treated in-person, it will make it more difficult to diagnose what is wrong with the patient and therefore lead to more complaints, and even lawsuits. The article discusses how telemedicine is becoming more and more prevalent, especially in North Carolina. Hoban asserts that physicians support telemedicine because it is a tool that works in correlation with other, previously known medical treatments. In other words, telemedicine is a compliment and not a replacement to current medical practices. The easiness and convenience of FaceTime consults with doctors is contagious and many practices are doing this. Physicians are no longer inculpated, because "the rate of missed diagnosis has dropped 17%," the largest decline in decades (Di Cerbo).

The goal is not to destroy what has worked in the medical industry thus far, but rather to add on to it. Another perspective is one of the impoverished person, someone who simply is not able to receive in-person medical care. According to Forbes magazine, "12% of Americans cannot afford any sort of medical treatment (Mohamed)." The better alternative is to receive virtual healthcare that the majority of citizens can afford, even the most impoverished.

In a nation as great as The United States of America, and in the modern age of the twenty-first century, a mother should not be forced to keep her critically ill child at home because she cannot afford healthcare. An elderly war veteran, missing his two legs, should be able to have medical care that is convenient for him. In the age of modernization, we seem to be focusing all of our efforts on modernizing less critical items, such as cellphones and televisions. 

We seem to be forgetting that the most important aspect of societal care is not who owns an iPhone 6S or has the most up-to-date laptop, but rather who receives the best medical treatment tailored to their specific needs. The key to receiving the best medical treatment is telemedicine, and it needs to be completely incorporated into the medical industry immediately.  Telemedicine is beneficial to the healthcare industry because of its ability to connect physicians and patients around the United States and the world, its cost-effectiveness, and the fact that it is created to serve as a compliment, not a replacement to current healthcare practices. With the incorporation of telemedicine into the healthcare industry in the United States, our great country will be propelled forward into a new age of enlightenment in healthcare.

