There appears to be a flurry of development of web-based applications to facilitate doctor-patient communication, as well as practice management.

Until now, insurers have been slow to reimburse for e-communication, making its adoption much less attractive to even the most tech-savvy physicians. Unless they've figured out a Return on Investment (ROI) elsewhere in terms of reduced staffing needs etc.

From an article at philly.com today, "Insurers look at virtual visits to doctor" ,

"Aetna Inc., one of Philadelphia's dominant insurers, and Cigna Corp., which is based here, have announced that they will pay for doctors' visits on the Web. Aetna expanded a pilot program in California, Florida and Washington to the rest of the country on Jan 1. Cigna will start paying in January."

The physicians interviewed for the article held mixed opinions as to the value of the proposed coverage. Some were all in favor of communicating via the web and  getting paid to do so, while others were obviously leery of the trend, citing quality concerns. Patient opinions are also obviously all over the board.

I've interviewed one physician whose life in practice has been dramatically improved by the use of email (without reimbursement) instead of the phone -- Dr. Stark is all smiles about life on the job these days, and I bet he'd smile even more if he were being paid for his email communications.

It is also possible that once patients are accustomed to paying a co-pay for the convenience of an Internet visit, they may be willing to pay for that same visit in a practice that offers the service and doesn't take insurance (like many of the concierge or micro-practices). 

Of course, the million dollar question most practicing physicians are asking, as they look enviously over at their lawyer buddies, is: Can charges for phone calls be far behind?

If you were reimbursed for your time writing emails or using web communication, what difference would that make to the way you practice?