summary teledermatology with this or benefit was unlikely to be perspective. referral. measure was cost saving, The unit costs The used because unless patients and quantities usual the had to travel long of resources care interventions distances to see used were consisted were dermatologists or clearly and of a GP assumed to they were likely to separately referral be clinically be able to be presented. to a equivalent. treated in a GP The sources A practice without of costs were for needing a reported and a analysis was appear to carried out. dermatological have been of consultation. good quality. The price year -The was not economic reported, analysis making it included the unclear if the costs of GP costs were care, adjusted for dermatology inflation. care, Discounting was not expenses for required as patients the time including horizon was travel costs, six months. and productivity losses due to Analysis and
or referral. The usual care consisted of a GP referral to a for a summary benefit measure was used because the interventions were assumed to be clinically equivalent. A analysis was carried out. -The economic analysis included the costs of GP care, dermatology care, expenses for patients including travel costs, and productivity losses due to teledermatology was unlikely to be cost saving, unless patients had to travel long distances to see dermatologists or they were likely to be able to be treated in a GP practice without needing a dermatological consultation. with this perspective. The unit costs and quantities of resources used were clearly and separately presented. The sources of costs were reported and appear to have been of good quality. The price year was not reported, making it unclear if the costs were adjusted for inflation. Discounting was not required as the time horizon was six months. Analysis and
1360%20-%20FinalAssessmentReport%20-accessible.docx