This article does an excellent job highlighting some of the more perverse characteristics of the healthcare system. We have one problem, a sinus infection being discussed. In this article Jackie describes 4 solutions; a Zipnosis visit for $25, a Virtuwell visit for $40, a Target Clinic for $75, and an office visit for roughly $150. In each of these 4 instances the probability is extremely high that the problem would have been resolved by a licensed nurse practitioner with exactly the same outcome. The glaring issue is why are the virtual visits more than 100% less expensive than the office visit? When one buys something on Amazon vs. buying it at a Target store you would not expect the Amazon price to be half that of the target store - certainly bricks and mortar do not cost that much. Alas comrades, in healthcare, it does, in addition to the other forms of waste. Individuals and employers are paying that 100% premium when they use the office visit and that is why our health insurance premiums are so high and increase so rapidly year after year. Only if companies like Zipnosis and other innovators continue to make inroads into the healthcare complex can we expect to see cost savings we all desire. In the words of Clay Christensen, true disruptive innovation can be known if it is convenient, simple, and low cost. Anything else calling itself innovation is fooling itself.

If they make a diagnostic error they will be sued. This will ultimately be reflected in the price of the service. Healthcare reform also requires tort reform. The twenty percent of the population who are lawyers will resist these reforms, of course.

It seems odd that in this whole article, Allina Health is not mentioned. They're a pretty large provider in Minnesota and they have offered e-visits for a while now.

All the HMO's have some type of online care. I think BCBS was the first to launch online care. This is a quick fix and should not be substituted for a physical examination by a physician. Quick access to care, does not mean better care.