6 Major Differences Between Telehealth and Remote Patient Care

The difference between Telehealth and Remote Patient Care on the surface you may think are subtle. However, as soon as you scratch past that surface veneer you find the differences are profound and far reaching. That is because the differences are foundational in nature. The key difference is that telehealth products focus on technology adapted for use in healthcare, while Remote Patient Care centers on the patient, using technology that is specifically built, designed, and integrated within the healthcare system. From the ground up. With this in mind we have developed a list of 6 major differences between the two that are a good representation of why these two philosophies are so different. And, why one is far superior to the other.

Technical Hurdles –

In modern medicine when it comes to healthcare, no matter where they are, technology plays a huge role in how everything works. It is unavoidable. What can be avoided is an over-abundance of technical hurdles in order to make the technology compatible. With Telehealth square pegs are often accompanied by adapters that will allow them to almost fit into round holes. Whether a third party application that claims to solve a specific problem has to be adapted to work with your EMR or vice versa these kinds of hurdles are far too common.

With a Remote Patient Care solution the majority of these problems are avoided because any solution developed starts from the perspective of patient care. And the first and biggest hurdle with patient care is ease of use. The less anyone has to actively work to get something to work the more the focus can be on care. That has always been true. So developing solutions from the ground up within the healthcare ethos maximizes effectiveness and minimizes or even eliminates technical hurdles.

Clinical Disconnect –

The Dr-Patient relationship is built on trust and consistency. It always has been. However the introduction of Telehealth created a rift in the consistency process. Which has led to a breakdown in trust. Trust and consistency have always defined the doctor–patient relationship. But the rise of telehealth disrupted that consistency. When businesses adapted tools designed for the corporate world to healthcare, they created a disconnect — not just between doctor and patient, but also between the in-clinic experience and the virtual one. As we’ve seen, this shift quickly eroded trust and reduced patients’ willingness to engage in care. This quickly, as we have seen, eroded trust and the willingness to participate in the process.

On the flip side, Remote Patient Care delivers an experience specifically designed to mimic an in clinic visit. The developers designed it with the patient experience in mind to create comfortable, easy-to-use interactions that closely mimic an in-clinic visit. This allows the Dr-Patient relationship to continue to grow and improve without a trust breakdown caused by a technological middle man.

Communication Limitations –

One of the main reasons a disconnect has developed is because of the incompatibility of the myriad of applications and devices out there. Tech companies build these devices to be fairly incompatible — proprietary products form the bedrock of the industry — yet we still try to force them to work together using third-party apps and workarounds. This causes all sorts of issues, most of which are more than annoying enough to deter adoption. 

For example who hasn’t had the “Can you hear me? Am I on mute? How did I get muted?” conversation during a patient call? Or better yet the “I’ve loaded the Telehealth application only for it to automatically kick into an update” dilemma? These kinds of annoyances immediately damage communication. There are of course much bigger problems that can seriously damage communication. What if a patient in a rural area doesn’t have access to the latest version and can suddenly no longer connect to their appointment? This kind of disconnect causes irreparable harm to the entire relationship. All because of a communication breakdown.

Creating an overall concept of Remote Patient Care works to ensure that communication with a patient is seamless, regardless of their location. Instead of forcing unnecessary technology into a situation to create a workaround Remote Patient Care addresses the problem foundationally so the available tools are fully integrated into the healthcare space using technology accessible to everyone. This allows communication to be as seamless as possible between a Dr and their Patient.

Access Issues –

The technology space does not effectively address Internet accessibility in any meaningful way. The standard bearer of median income and average urban location has created a disparate set of technology circumstances that is only exemplified within the healthcare ethos. Accessibility presents a complex challenge that results in a wide range of circumstances. Any combination of wealth and location can cause a potential patient to not have access to the bandwidth necessary to run any number of telehealth applications. For example one patient may make a good living but live in a more rural area of the country. This combination can make getting a reliable high speed internet connection more difficult. Or a person may live in where it is easy to find high speed internet service providers but they lack the necessary income to afford them. 

In addition patients might not have access to the necessary educational tools to properly understand how to effectively use and connect via many Telehealth apps. Therefore, using technological advancement as the standard bearer for healthcare communication development does a significant disservice to the patients in need of care.

Using a Remote Patient Care (RPC) concept again puts the patient at the forefront of the tool development process. Creating devices, tools, and platforms that can be optimally and easily used in the broadest and most dire of access situations only improves a Practitioner’s ability to connect and communicate with their patients. A patient, through minimal steps (meaning one or two), that can access a communication method no matter their internet connectivity speed is essential in delivering meaningful care and is a foundation of the RPC concept.

Stability –

A fundamental issue facing telehealth is its ability to present a stable functioning environment across multiple platforms. Anyone who has used a telehealth platform has had to deal with people having trouble connecting, people inexplicably being on mute, or video feeds cutting out or not connecting while audio works. These stability issues have foundational causes that are as varied as they are frustrating. Whether it is something as fundamental as people using different operating systems – Android vs Apple phones as an example – or something with serious complexities – like differing EMRs – they all come down to technologies built first as proprietary technologies and second as healthcare applications.

A RPC construct fundamentally avoids this singular problem by reversing those first two priorities. With Healthcare being the driving force of development a proper RPC solution takes into consideration core constructs like OS or EMR variations. An RPC mindset considers these complexities during development in order to optimize the effectiveness within the Healthcare ethos.

Cost –

Though this is the last item on the list of six it is of course the monster lurking in the shadows. How much will this implementation impact the bottom line? Developers approach telehealth solutions with a programming- and technology-first mindset. Build fast and break often. In healthcare, this often translates into both direct and hidden costs. In healthcare, this often translates into both direct and hidden costs. Providers not only cover the cost of “upgrades” and improvements but also spend valuable time troubleshooting failed connections, handling missed appointments, and managing inpatient stays for patients who could have been treated remotely. These costs create ballooning budgetary items for any practice or healthcare enterprise.

Remote Patient Care puts care first. When implemented correctly, it creates an environment that directly reduces costs. By designing systems that are easy to use and fully integrated with provider needs, such as EMR integration, organizations can significantly cut hidden costs. And, when built effectively, it not only lowers the direct costs of updates and improvements, but in some cases, eliminates them entirely. Though that is certainly dependent on the ethics and standards of the company delivering the technology.

Ultimately, the distinction between Telehealth and Remote Patient Care isn’t just semantic—it’s structural, philosophical, and deeply consequential. Where Telehealth often forces technology into the healthcare space, Remote Patient Care starts with the patient and builds outward, designing solutions that genuinely support clinical relationships, communication, access, stability, and cost-efficiency. As healthcare continues to evolve in a digital age, it’s critical that we choose approaches that serve the patient first—not the platform. Remote Patient Care isn’t simply a better version of Telehealth; it’s a fundamentally different approach, purpose-built for the realities and complexities of modern healthcare delivery.