BUSI 428 Week 7 Discussion Board Forum 7 Example

Discussion Board Forum 7: Marketing Virtual Care

BUSI 428 Strategic Management and Marketing in Healthcare, Discussion Board Forum 7

Thread by [Student Name]

The health system, its virtual care service and the classmates are composites; the textbook, Scripture and the peer-reviewed sources cited are real.

Our regional health system launched video visits during the pandemic and still offers them, but almost entirely as scheduled follow-ups booked days in advance. Meanwhile, our patients' pharmacy records show prescriptions from subscription telehealth apps for skin care, hair loss and urinary infections, services we provide and could deliver virtually. Cellucci et al. (2014) teach that a service is defined by the benefits customers seek, not by the provider's description, and for many patients the benefit they seek is speed and convenience.

The demand is clear. Ivanova et al. (2024) repeated a 2017 national survey in 2022 with 4,577 U.S. adults and found that awareness that one's own primary care provider offered telemedicine rose from 5.3% to 61.1%, and use of telemedicine with that provider rose from 3.5% to 34.5%. Ease of use and satisfaction were similar to in-person care. Churruca et al. (2025) surveyed 151 users of direct-to-consumer telemedicine services and found that 80.2% cited convenience and 58.7% flexibility, while about a third said they could not see their usual provider in the time they wanted. Most felt more in control of their health, yet 40.4% had never discussed the app's treatment with their regular doctor.

Applying the marketing mix, I would recommend four changes. The product should include same-day on-demand video visits for common conditions. The price should be a published flat self-pay fee, competitive with the apps. The place is the patient portal, with a one-click start from the home screen. Promotion should reach our own patients first, through portal messages and signs in primary care offices, emphasizing that our clinicians can see their full records. Each of these changes answers a reason the survey respondents gave for choosing an app, which keeps the plan tied to what patients actually value rather than to what the system finds easy to offer. An app sells convenience; a health system can sell convenience plus a doctor who knows your history.

In Jesus's parable of the great banquet, the master sends his servant out quickly into the streets and lanes to bring people in (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Luke 14:21). A system that waits for patients to find a buried video option has not yet gone out to meet them.

Reply to Danielle

Danielle, you worried that encouraging more virtual care would fragment patients' records and relationships, especially if they move between the health system and outside apps. That concern is well founded, and it is actually an argument for the health system to compete rather than step aside. Churruca et al. (2025) found that 40.4% of direct-to-consumer telemedicine users had never discussed the treatment they received with their regular doctor, and another 16.9% rarely did, which means much of that care happens outside the patient's record. If our system offers convenient virtual visits, care that would have gone to an app stays connected to the chart, the medication list and the primary care team. Ivanova et al. (2024) found that satisfaction with telemedicine through patients' own primary care providers was similar to in-person care, which suggests continuity does not have to cost patients a good experience. Cellucci et al. (2014) describe the patient relationship as an asset that marketing should protect, and fragmented care weakens that relationship. Proverbs advises not to forsake your friend and your father's friend (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Proverbs 27:10), and long relationships with trusted clinicians are worth protecting in the same way. A practical safeguard would be to route every on-demand visit note to the patient's primary care clinician automatically and to invite patients who use outside apps to share those records. Would your organization's virtual visits be easier to coordinate if they were staffed by the same clinicians patients already see in person? That arrangement could turn continuity into the selling point that apps cannot match, and it would give patients a reason to choose the system even when an app is a few dollars cheaper.

Reply to Victor

Victor, you raised the concern that marketing virtual care mainly benefits younger, connected patients and may leave behind older and lower-income patients. The evidence supports your worry and also suggests ways to address it. Shao et al. (2026) studied 17,859 patients who responded to a telemedicine satisfaction survey and found that visits scheduled as video but converted to phone were more common among older patients, Medicare enrollees, lower-income patients and people in areas with less broadband, and those converted visits had the lowest satisfaction. Ivanova et al. (2024) likewise found that people living at the poverty line were less likely to be satisfied with telemedicine. The authors of the first study recommend previsit support calls to help patients connect. Wilcher et al. (2026) found that when the Veterans Affairs system distributed video-enabled tablets, continuity of mental health care rose 27% for the women veterans studied, showing that closing the device gap can expand care. Cellucci et al. (2014) remind marketers that segmentation should help an organization serve each group well, not only the most profitable. Isaiah describes the shepherd who gathers the lambs in his arms and gently leads those that are with young (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Isaiah 40:11), an image of care that adjusts to those who need more help. Would your organization consider a short previsit call for first-time video patients over 65? A small investment in setup support might make the service work for the patients most likely to be left out. Tracking how often video visits for those patients convert to phone, before and after the calls begin, would show quickly whether the support is working and whether it deserves a wider rollout.

References

Cellucci, L. W., Wiggins, C., & Farnsworth, T. J. (2014). Healthcare marketing: A case study approach. Health Administration Press.

Churruca, K., Foo, D., Turner, A., Crameri, E., Saba, M., Spanos, S., Vickers, M., Braithwaite, J., & Ellis, L. A. (2025). Users' perspectives of direct-to-consumer telemedicine services: Survey study. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e68619. https://doi.org/10.2196/68619

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Ivanova, J., Wilczewski, H., Klocksieben, F., Cummins, M., Soni, H., Ong, T., Barrera, J., Harvey, J., O'Connell, N., McElligott, J., Welch, B., & Bunnell, B. (2024). Patient preferences for direct-to-consumer telemedicine services: Replication and extension of a nationwide survey. JMIR Human Factors, 11, e51056. https://doi.org/10.2196/51056

Shao, C. C., McLeod, M. C., Lawler, L. E., Wallace, E. L., Chu, D. I., & Reddy, S. (2026). Closing the digital divide: Improving telemedicine satisfaction using previsit communication. Telemedicine and e-Health, 32(4), 401-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/15305627251413001

Wilcher, B., Jacobs, J., Van Campen, J., Greene, L., Kimerling, R., & Zulman, D. M. (2026). Tablets and telehealth: Expanding care reach by closing the digital divide. Health Affairs Scholar, 4(5), qxag066. https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag066