What does the industry say?
Independent insurance-sector evidence shows that first clinical contact can fundamentally change what happens next in the healthcare journey.
Hollard / Henner / Teladoc: what the reported data shows
Hollard Health's published material describes a telehealth model in which members can access qualified doctors remotely, including video consultation, medical advice and prescriptions where local regulation allows. Hollard also reports patient-behaviour data from Henner/Teladoc cases.
| Patient response | Without virtual doctor | After consultation |
|---|---|---|
| Visit a doctor | 71% | 31% |
| Go to emergency room | 10% | 5% |
| Stay home | 19% | 64% |
| Patient response | Without virtual doctor | After consultation |
|---|---|---|
| Visit a doctor | 67% | 32% |
| Go to emergency room | 12% | 7% |
| Stay home | 21% | 61% |
The first clinical contact changed what happened next.
The key point is not simply that patients used telemedicine. Before speaking to a doctor, roughly two thirds believed they needed a physical doctor. After the virtual physician consultation, only about one third actually proceeded to a doctor. At the same time, roughly six in ten were able to stay home. This is powerful independent evidence of the mechanism that matters to an insurer:
Hollard's reported figures should not be presented as a controlled causal trial or as a direct claims-saving percentage. They compare stated intended behaviour with reported post-consultation behaviour. The direction and size of the shift are nonetheless highly relevant.
A 93% digital closure rate.
The Hollard/Henner figures and our 93% closure figure measure different things and must not be compared as if they were the same KPI.
Hollard/Henner measures the change between what patients said they would have done without virtual care and what they did after the virtual consultation. Our Swedish figure measures the proportion of digital cases that were clinically closed without needing further physical escalation.
But both point to the same underlying principle:
Why our result can be stronger
The difference is not simply ‘better telemedicine’. It is the design of the clinical journey.
The doctor is not merely a digital alternative to a physical consultation. The clinical assessment becomes the decision point for what happens next.
This is where Medicual goes further
Medicual is designed so that the first clinical contact is only the beginning of a continuous clinical journey.
First contact · Assessment
Resolution where possible, referral where necessary.
Appropriate provider
Referred onward with clinical context attached.
Follow-up · Continuous medical record
The journey is carried forward, not closed off.
For the insurer, that creates an opportunity to influence the healthcare journey before simply paying for its outcome — not by making medical decisions, but by ensuring that an appropriate clinical decision happens before unnecessary physical care begins.
The consultation is not the end of the journey
The published Hollard / Henner / Teladoc material clearly demonstrates the impact of first virtual clinical contact. What it does not establish, from the material we have reviewed, is whether the subsequent care journey is maintained as one continuous longitudinal medical record available for future treatment.
Continuity is built into Medicual
Every clinical interaction contributes to the patient's Electronic Medical Record (EMR). If treated remotely, the encounter becomes part of the continuing history. If referred, the receiving provider already has the relevant clinical information.
The next consultation does not start from zero.
Telemedicine provides access to a doctor. Medicual provides the clinical infrastructure around what happens before, during and after that consultation — and carries that knowledge forward.
The insurance argument
Source note: Hollard / Henner / Teladoc figures referenced here are drawn from Hollard Health published material reporting Henner case experience up to July 2022 and December 2022. The figures are presented as reported patient behaviour, not as a controlled clinical trial or a direct claims-saving percentage.
Please note this report is from 2022. One can reasonably assume the underlying numbers have improved further since then.