Financial Performance of Hospital Telehealth Adopters, Nonadopters, and Switchers: A Rural-Urban Comparison

Saleema A. Karim et al.

Journal of Healthcare Management2025https://doi.org/10.1097/jhm-d-24-00026article
ABDC C
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

The telehealth adoption status has unveiled noticeable patterns in hospital financial performance. In both rural and urban settings, hospitals persistently lacking telehealth capacity have the worst financial performance when compared to hospitals that persistently maintained telehealth services or hospitals that adopted telehealth over the study period. Overall, urban hospitals had better financial performance, which is likely associated with higher caseloads and payer mix compared to rural hospitals. Hospitals that adopted telehealth over the study period showed an increase in financial margins similar to hospitals with persistent telehealth adoption. Targeted policies that address the specific financial challenges of hospitals with a history of poor performance could effectively increase telehealth adoption in these settings. Future research should examine whether adoption among hospitals persistently lacking telehealth can influence the quality and accessibility of services, along with associated health outcomes to determine whether more aggressive policy action is warranted.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1097/jhm-d-24-00026

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{saleema2025,
  title        = {{Financial Performance of Hospital Telehealth Adopters, Nonadopters, and Switchers: A Rural-Urban Comparison}},
  author       = {Saleema A. Karim et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Healthcare Management},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1097/jhm-d-24-00026},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Financial Performance of Hospital Telehealth Adopters, Nonadopters, and Switchers: A Rural-Urban Comparison

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.