As virtual urgent care grows, health systems face an integration problem

As patients flock to virtual urgent care, health systems face the dilemma of attempting to compete with standalone platforms or waiting to see if they truly have staying power – all the while wrestling with the industry’s longstanding issues of quality, equity, and value. 

Research organizations have projected the market for virtual urgent care will grow between 8.5% and 13.4% annually over the next several years. Adoption patterns support these numbers: A PYMNTS report found 21% of patients use virtual urgent care, with younger patients not surprisingly more likely to turn to such services, while The Health Management Academy estimated 70% of learning health systems support virtual urgent care models.  

Cost and access are clear motivating factors for patients who choose virtual urgent care, the organization said, adding that offering the service is now “table stakes” for large providers. However, health systems that struggle to integrate virtual urgent care into the patient journey may leak patients, even as standalone providers face their own challenges.  

Providing a worthy complement to in-person care

Virtual urgent care’s growth potential appears to be occurring at the expense of its two parent markets: Urgent care and virtual care. 

• The urgent care market has been in flux for years, with Trilliant Health noting a supply-and-demand mismatch that was held over from the COVID-19 public health emergency and reflected in the financial struggles of Amazon, Walgreens, and Walmart Health.  

• Direct-to-consumer virtual care providers have struggled for similar reasons, Forrester noted, as business models aren’t sustainable and care continuity is largely absent. Teladoc’s recent partnership with Walmart further reflects the industry’s emphasis on increasing visit-based revenue. 

Done right, virtual urgent care can “effectively complement” in-person urgent care, according to a Nature paper, “especially in an increasingly consumer-centric environment where patients expect a digital experience that offers convenience and ease of use.” The paper examined the offering from the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, which demonstrated lower 3-day return rates to the emergency department than brick-and-mortar urgent care. 

Ensuring patients aren’t left behind as adoption grows

The Nature paper concluded that virtual urgent care can support demand in an integrated, value-based system. Integrated is the operative word – Forrester suggested patients typically view the virtual urgent care journey with a traditional health system as “disjointed or an afterthought.” That happens when organizations implement platforms in an ad hoc manner, as inconsistent interfaces and experiences frustrate patients and clinicians alike. 

Counting on virtual urgent care to address growing demand also prompts questions of quality and equity. While many health systems capture care quality metrics, few monitor virtual urgent care’s effectiveness in coordinating care, and quality measures related to addressing inequity are equally rare. (It’s worth noting these findings also apply broadly to telehealth, not just virtual urgent care.) 

Equity is a particular concern with virtual urgent care, as it may create certain obstacles to access just as easily as it breaks down others. Researchers in The Lancet suggested health systems invest in digital literacy training, affordable broadband, and culturally appropriate communication “to prevent underserved populations from being left behind.” 

The Health Management Academy recommended organizations view virtual urgent care as part of a larger digital front door strategy that makes it easy to schedule appointments, access resources, and view pricing options from a centralized platform. Ultimately, health systems should aim to avoid the “dead ends” that ultimately drive patients to seek care elsewhere. 

Brian Eastwood is a Boston-based writer with more than 10 years of experience covering healthcare IT and healthcare delivery. He also writes about enterprise IT, consumer technology, and corporate leadership.