Stop the presses! Randall Stross over at the Digital Domain at The New York Times has just discovered online therapy.
Acknowledging that the idea has been around for a long time, Stross begins the piece by digging up an American Journal of Psychiatry article from 38 years ago, written by Thomas Dwyer describing one of the first telepsychiatry systems ever devised (at Massachusetts General Hospital). How quaint. (Confusing telepsychiatry/telehealth systems — which have been around for decades utilizing private networks and closed video systems, and that are well-researched — with online therapy is a common mistake made by journalists who explore this area.)
The hook, apparently, is to highlight yet some more companies who’ve decided to take the plunge into exploiting this modality:
Today, even with the rise of the Internet, virtual therapy hasn’t been widely adopted. But several start-up companies are trying to make Dr. Dwyer’s decades-old vision a workaday reality.
Despite having little new to say or to add to this topic — for instance, where’s the consumer demand for these services? — I found the article somewhat interesting nonetheless. If for no other reason, to point out how these articles all follow the same tired template: offer a unique hook, point out the opportunity, quote the research, highlight a new service offering a solution, quote some naysayers, and end with a tie-in to your opening hook.
The Times piece mentions two companies. Why they are singled out is anybody’s guess, but the cynic in me might suggest they have better PR than the companies not mentioned.
Cope Today — for only $140/hour — will let you see a therapist online via video, phone or online text chat. HealthLinkNow is focused on the employer market, believing that if they can just get large employers to sign up for this benefit for their employees, employees will enjoy having the additional resource available to them. I would mention at least one other company that should’ve been mentioned, and that’s Breakthrough, which has also enjoyed some success in this round of startups.
Here’s the argument for employers signing onto these services:
Barb Johnston, the chief executive of HealthLinkNow, says: “I think you’re going to see larger companies provide rooms in which employees can seek telemedicine services, including mental health services. That way, the employee won’t lose a half or a whole day of work for a consult.”
Really? I’m going to walk into a special room in the company, spend an hour in there, and then walk out and not have to worry about any prejudicial or weird looks from my co-workers or boss?
This is the delicate and odd balance we have with healthcare in the U.S. Employers often pick up the majority of the costs of health care services, but we want them knowing nothing about our health and well-being. (This problem could be fairly readily solved by disconnecting health payment from employers, giving employees the equivalent money, and having them purchase insurance on their own.)
I also suspect any company pursuing the employer route is going to eventually face the hard realities of these services provided through an employer — low utilization rates. People simply don’t trust these kinds of services offered through their company, because no matter what is said, they believe some or all of the information shared with an online therapy service might make it back to their boss.
While that would be a violation of federal law in the U.S., it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, even if sometimes in unintended ways. For instance, aggregated data provided to a company about utilization of services may not be anonymized or “cleaned” properly, making individual identification possible (it’s happened in similar cases).
Getting back to the article, I believe that Cope Today’s pricing is just ridiculous. For $140/hour, you can pay out of pocket to see the best psychologist in your community (in, I’d say, more than 90 percent of the country). The only advantage that Cope Today offers is convenience.
After describing the two startups and their business models, Stross makes the opposite case, pointing out all the problems online therapy faces — the lack of nonverbal communication (although, strangely, this is tied to videoconferencing when it’s much more of a concern with email-based therapy interventions), technology mishaps, and the assertion that getting up and physically going to a psychotherapy appointment is, in itself, an important component of depression treatment. While indeed physical exercise can help people with depression, a person who sees someone online is in no way limited from being asked to engage in such exercise as a part of their treatment plan.
Last, there’s a bunch of words devoted to what to do about people who present online and then have a crisis, where immediate assistance is needed. One simple way to deal with this problem is to ensure online therapists get emergency contact information:
Ms. Malik, of CopeToday, says the therapists she represents […] do not collect personal contact information from their online patients. “If you’re counseling and it escalates, we would call 911,” she says.
What good is the emergency phone number 911 without information about the geography or address of the person you’re counseling or is in crisis? I’m all for pseudonymous psychotherapy interactions — we offered them on HelpHorizons in 1999 — but you can’t pretend you can also offer crisis service backup in such cases.
Last, the issue of reimbursement of online therapy is also raised in the article, which is still very much a patchwork quilt of coverage in the U.S.:
But companies promoting online therapy must contend with uneven or absent support from insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid. Most states don’t require insurers to pay for “telehealth” services (those not delivered in person). And any reimbursements can be less substantial than for in-person treatment. Medicare offers reimbursement only if providers are very scarce, as in rural areas.
The APA offered a nice summary of the current state of reimbursement of online therapy here in March. Some private insurers pay, most notably Blue Cross/Blue Shield in some — but not all — areas.
I’ll end this online therapy update with the same thing I said six months ago — it’s a great modality that still has little consumer demand for it. People are so used to getting services for free online, the idea of having to pay for professional therapy online is still not something most are willing to do. If it’s going to cost pretty much the same as it would for face-to-face services, many are going to opt for the face-to-face services.
Which isn’t to say there still isn’t potential for online therapy — there is. There are dozens of online clinics like Cope Today, and hundreds of individual providers offering online therapy, seeing thousands of patients every month. But it’s still a drop in the overall psychotherapy bucket — a bucket that continues to decline in utilization year after year. Perhaps online therapy can help slow or even reverse this decline, but it remains to be seen whether the idea can match the market reality.
2020 Update: It’s so quaint to see this article originally published in 2011, nine years later. Online therapy (or e-therapy) is now firmly ensconced as one of the many legitimate, research-backed modalities available to people seeking psychotherapy.
Read the full article: Bringing Therapists to Patients, via the Web
12 comments
In an age of psychotherapy where the nature of the therapeutic alliance between therapist and patient is seen as far more important than any particular psychotherapeutic paradigm or approach, here is where Skype therapy could be most helpful:
Those cases where a patient relocates, a therapist relocates, or there are extenuating circumstances like extended illness, injury, changes in employment circumstance, etc. that prevent one or the other from getting to the therapist’s office.
Take the simple case of a shift worker in therapy whose employer changes her shift from nights to days. She’s been in therapy for eighteen months and wants to continue, but it’s now impossible for her to leave the hospital to see her therapist, and the therapist doesn’t normally do weekend office hours. Nor can the therapist find an after-work slot to accommodate her. They have a strong therapeutic alliance, and the shift worker doesn’t want to end therapy or change therapists. With Skype, rather than terminate the therapy, the therapist and patient could more easily find an therapeutic hour to work — maybe even on the weekend from home.
Skype is potentially the best tool to help maintain ongoing therapeutic alliances. So many therapies that would have been forced to end by outside forces can now continue.
I’d like to see therapists offer it as a matter of course in appropriate situations.
Your readers may be interested in a free online program called MoodGYM which is based on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Trials have shown a reduction in symptoms of depression and anxiety even when users complete only one or two modules. These benefits last at least 12 months after use.
MoodGYM was developed by the Australian National University in conjunction with other leading researchers and mental health experts, but you don’t have to be an Australian to participate – it’s estimated that over 200,000 people worldwide have used the program thus far.
For the record, I’m not affiliated with MoodGYM or it’s creators, in fact I haven’t even used this particular program. I’m just an Aussie with treatment-resistant depression who has recieved some benefit from CBT (and DBT for that matter). Because while I still have severe depression (it appears to be mainly biological), I am now equipped with skills to challenge the bombardment of suicidal thoughts. And having twice attempted suicide, I’m pretty sure I’d be dead otherwise.
Any way, here is the link for MoodGYM: http://moodgym.anu.edu.au/welcome
On line services are an adjunct to mental health care, not a substitute. You start rationalizing you can either treat or be treated over an internet service, you are in the end dumbing down the intrinsic value of psychotherapy for the one to one interaction it is.
They told me in my residency only about 20% of the patient population really will utilize and find treatment maximally efficacious for mental health. For a good portion of my career I really resisted believing that statistic, that providers would grow weary of working with a sizeable percentage of patients who would either test the process or just tire of the real committment of treatment that really is about time, money and energy.
But, for me, both the false sale of widespread psychopharmacology and the intrusion of the internet really has been dumbing down the value of mental health care in the end. So, that number is more likely true. How unfortunate that of the 10 people who come into mental health care, only 2 of them will realize some substantial impact into their lives.
But, I am willing to continue to work to maximize I will interact with that 20% that will comprise a larger percentage of my practice in the end. Because I do not sell quick fixes, but solid and effective interventions.
Skype away providers and patients. I am sorry to say you probably will sour on the outcomes sooner than if you interact with the person at the other end of the room directly. Just my opinion.
$140 per hour is nonsense. At iCouch.me we charge $99 per hour for single sessions and have 4-session block discounts available. CopeToday has to charge so much because they have to pay their PR people so much money! Interestingly, also in the Times article it mentioned that CopeToday’s PR flack wouldn’t comment on how many clients return for follow up sessions. At iCouch, we have over 86% of clients return for at least a second session. While there are other good providers (Breakthrough is certainly one,) at iCouch.me, we take online counseling much more seriously than your average venture-funded ‘dot-hope.’ Online platforms have a duty beyond getting press — their focus should always be on client service first, then financial rewards second. We all remember that in the early days, google and Twitter were non-revenue companies. They focused on product first. That’s how it should be with online psychology — making counseling affordable, accessible and convenient. Profits will come — PR flacks or no PR flacks!
Thanks for the great analysis of the Times sudden realization of what we’ve been building for years. Great article!
Brian Dear
CEO, iCouch, Inc.
Brian, thanks for sharing some information about your services at iCouch; I’m glad to read of it. For the record, Twitter is still pretty much a non-revenue company because they have a valuation of something like $4 billion.
Joel, I respectfully disagree. We now a good set of research demonstrating the effectiveness of these kinds of interventions, so it’s not that they aren’t or couldn’t be effective on their own. It’s just that not that many people are interested in using them.
Given that up to 40 percent of patients never return for a second psychotherapy session, perhaps there’s a business model for helping those kinds of folks who are looking for (whether they consciously realize it or not) single session psychotherapy.
John,
I can’t agree more. It’s no longer about who is right or wrong in terms of where services should be delivered, but about looking at the public’s demand for help. The public is online, period. Our job is to be where they are so that when the need arises, they find a qualified person to help them.
IMO, as a profession we can do better at helping people access services at different points and not just when they are ready to pay full fee. There’s a great business model out there for people who want to have entry products for clients to help warm them up to therapy.
Perhaps if we started looking at the real needs our clients have then we can design a way for them to interact with us along the way to a face to face session and not just when they’re ready to commit to the full package.
I don’t know many other businesses that demand in the way many clinicians do that they only way to get involved if full fee. It’s no wonder that pop psychology is so popular. The statement there by the public is that they want smaller and less expensive ways to get involved. Would love to see someone research how many products, books, seminars, workshops, tele-classes, ebooks etc full-fee clients participated in before they actually bit the bullet to get in a relationship with a therapist.
Thanks for posting your thoughts, they reminded me to go back to my inbox and read the full article!
Melanie
Thank you for the reply, Dr Grohol, but please note I did not just pick on internet services as a cause to poor follow up, but the fact that psychopharmacology is oversold, and in my opinion as a practicing psychiatrist, overutilized until proven otherwise diminishes the pursuit of psychotherapy.
Behavioral cognitive therapy really is being minimized these days, or just sold as a quick fix by 3-6 visit committments by therapists, especially in EAPs from what I have seen and heard. Maybe a sizeable percentage of people with depression and anxiety do not need to see a therapist for 6 or more months at times, but to claim you can treat a person in 3-6 visits who have quantifiable psychosocial issues to their angst, 2 months of follow up does not cut it!
And having the internet be sized up as a resource, well, good luck with that long term for the majority of patients. Note I do not call people clients or customers.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Dr. Hassman. We need that personal connection, we need it for more than 6 sessions when we are in a serious depression. How does a therapist really read a person or see their emotion over a computer screen – they can’t. It’s important to keep the human aspect in therapy. I think this is such a large part of the problem in society today – we are becoming disconnected with each other and replacing personal interacation with gadets.
We are social creatures – that doesn’t change because technology comes up with a different idea.
As a former client of a modestly-priced online therapist (average cost was $25 a session; his prices have increased to $28 a session), this therapy was the best I ever had. It wasn’t just the cost nor the convenience; it was, perhaps, partly because I had a skilled therapist, but also because it overcame all the problems I had with face-to-face therapy: 1) Payment was required before services were received; with my face-to-face therapist (hereafter referred to as FtoF), we had disagreements about payments, mostly because he switched to treating me pro bono; 2) I can still refer back to therapy sessions, even though we ended therapy over 4 years ago, because it was email therapy and everything is in writing. With FtoF, I’d refer to something he’d said, and he’d deny that he said it; 3) My email therapist always seemed to remember who I was; he didn’t forget important details (of course, he could look them up if he needed to); 4) We had an excellent therapeutic relationship. Although my sessions are pretty disorganized because I’ve been scanning everything I own to get rid of paper and I’ve only partly completed the process, I’d be happy to share them with you if you’d like to see evidence of how email therapy can be efficacious.
Hi John, I agree with much of your post. (We were contacted for the New York Times article but my emails to the reporter were trapped by his spam folder so Breakthrough.com wasn’t covered! I joked that next time, I am sending emails, phone calls, smoke signals, and carrier pigeons.)
We see a growing number of companies entering the space and I think you’ve isolated the key issue: consumer demand. It exists but it’s not yet widespread and there are numerous risks that you know about to navigate, which makes succeeding in this market a lot harder than the typical consumer web or mobile application. I think we’ve had some modest success because we are very focused on where client demand is highest (and learned from plenty of mistakes along the way!).
It will be fascinating to watch this market evolve.
Best,
Mark Goldenson
Breakthrough.com
you’re right. online therapy is truly one of the best ways to get counselling without paying so much time. I for one had a wonderful experience with an online therapy provider and I must say that online therapy is such a great way to get counselled!
Telemedicine is currently revolutionizing the field of medicine as we know it. Patients can see doctors in the comfort of their homes without spending time and money on transportation and wait times. Also, oftentimes patients live in rural areas and do not have access to doctors. Because of these barriers to treatment, we have introduced telehealth consultations to the field of opiate addiction treatment by utilizing video conferencing software. Patients can now receive treatment for their opiate addiction and be prescribed buprenorphine-containing medications such as Suboxone in the comfort of their own homes. For more information on our services, please visit renaissancepn.com
Comments are closed.