Although there are increasing numbers of telemedicine programmes in the USA, few have offered teleoncology services, so that the role of telemedicine in the practice of clinical oncology has yet to be fully defined. Telemedicine has been used successfully for direct patient care in Kansas. It is also a method of providing supportive care for the cancer patient, including assessments of pain and nutrition. In addition, televised tumour conferences and nursing education courses can help smaller communities develop a level of expertise that allows patients to be treated locally. Telemedicine may well be used in future for access to national and international cancer experts, and for participation in new cancer treatment protocols through cooperative group trials. When practising oncology via telemedicine, there are unique problems, including issues regarding technology interactive video and radiograph review and practice patient oncologist preferences and doctor-patient communication . Very little has been published in the area of tele-oncology so far, and studies concerning its efficacy, cost-effectiveness and the best organizational structure are still in progress. However, telemedicine appears to be a useful technique in the practice of oncology.

A telehospice service is one in which telemedicine is used to provide hospice care in the home. To date, there have been few studies addressing the cost of home-based telemedical care, and none that specifically addresses cost-effectiveness for telehospice recipients. We measured costs for traditional hospice care as well as those associated with launching and operating a telehospice service. The costs were tallied over two separate three-month periods. For the first study period, costs were measured for traditional hospice home visits. During the second, expenses were monitored for traditional (in-person) and telehospice visits. For traditional care, the cost per visit was $126 and $141, for the first and second time periods, respectively. The average telehospice visit cost was $29.

Background: The National Clinical Trials Network program conducts phase 2 or phase 3 treatment trials across all National Cancer Institute’s designated cancer centers. Participant accrual across these clinical trials is a critical factor in deciding their success. Cancer centers that cater to rural populations, such as The University of Kansas Cancer Center, have an additional responsibility to ensure rural residents have access and are well represented across these studies. Objective: There are scant data available regarding the factors that act as barriers to the accrual of rural residents in these clinical trials. This study aims to use electronic screening logs that were used to gather patient data at several participating sites in The Kansas University of Cancer Center’s Catchment area. Methods: Screening log data were used to assess what clinical trial participation barriers are faced by these patients. Additionally, the differences in clinical trial participation barriers were compared between rural and urban participating sites. Results: Analysis revealed that the hospital location rural urban category, defined as whether the hospital was in an urban or rural setting, had a medium effect on enrolment of patients in breast cancer and lung cancer trials (Cohen d=0.7). Additionally, the hospital location category had a medium effect on the proportion of recurrent lung cancer cases at the time of screening (d=0.6). Conclusions: In consideration of the financially hostile nature of cancer treatment as well as geographical and transportation barriers, clinical trials extended to rural communities are uniquely positioned to alleviate the burden of nonmedical costs in trial participation. However, these options can be far less feasible for patients in rural settings. Since the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for a clinical trial is already limited by the stringent eligibility criteria required of such a complex disease, improving accessibility for rural patients should be a greater focus in health policy.

The teleoncology practice based at the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) in Kansas City, Kansas, is one of the longest running practices of its kind worldwide. The practice began in 1995 and connected an oncologist at KUMC with a rural medical center in Hays, Kansas. Fifteen years later, the practice continues to thrive at Hays Medical Center and has also expanded to include two additional sites within the state—the Northeast Kansas Center for Health and Wellness in Horton and Goodland Regional Medical Center in Goodland—that offer regularly scheduled teleoncology clinics. While the KUMC practice has witnessed an expansion in service sites throughout its history, the practice has seen a significant decrease in the costs associated with providing such services since its inception. The cost decrease can, in part, be attributed to an increase in the number of teleoncology visits conducted through the practice since it began. In Fiscal Year 1995 (FY 1995), 103 teleoncology visits resulted in a cost per visit of $812. Five years later, the FY 2000 $410 per visit cost for 121 visits was almost half the cost identified in the initial cost analysis. The FY 2003 cost per visit for 219 visits saw another decrease to $401, and the most recent FY 2005 cost analysis yielded another decrease to $251 per visit for 235 visits. The data reported below are likely to be the best now available to track time trends in the cost of providing telemedicine or telehealth consultations. The Conclusion and Policy Recommendations at the end of this article will focus on both the cost–time profile and some other challenges and lessons learned.

Costs were monitored for three different types of oncology practice: a telemedicine clinic and a fly-in outreach clinic, both held in rural areas, and a traditional clinic held in a city hospital. Total expenses were calculated over the year May 1995 to April 1996. The average cost per telemedicine visit was $812. The average cost per out reach clinic visit was $897. Flying in oncology support for this practice was therefore about 10% more costly than telemedicine. While the outreach cost may have been inappropriately high due to as low start-up phase, it was still less expensive during this period to be seen via telemedicine. For comparison, the average cost per traditional oncology clinic visit was $149. However, this figure does not take into account the costs of access to a city-based service by rural patients.

Summary The costs of providing oncology services in three different ways were measured. Services were provided to a peripheral hospital by: conventional clinics, in which the oncologist worked at the hospital concerned; outreach clinics, in which an oncologist was flown in periodically from a central hospital; and telemedicine clinics, in which the oncologist at the central hospital practised via a video-link. During a one-year study period, 2400 patients were seen in conventional clinics, 81 in outreach clinics and 103 in telemedicine clinics. At these workloads the average costs per patient were 149, 897 and 812, respectively. However, the average costs cannot be compared directly without further information about the shape of the unit cost curves.