Few areas of healthcare have changed as rapidly or as visibly as telemedicine. Once a peripheral offering, it has now moved toward the center of service delivery in many systems. For economists and policymakers trying to track its expansion, the challenge is not only the novelty of the model, but the limitations of the data infrastructure built for a different era. The International Standard Industrial Classification—ISIC code 8623, covering medical and dental practice activities—remains the default category. Yet for real analysis, it’s not enough to know how many providers fit under the broad banner of 8623. The work starts with the task of disaggregation.
Disaggregating ISIC 8623 requires more than a quick scan of registry records. Most national databases do not yet offer a dedicated subcode for telemedicine, forcing analysts to get creative. Sometimes, supplementary business descriptions or licensing documentation will explicitly reference “telemedicine,” “virtual care,” or “digital consultations.” In other cases, industry associations, platform registries, or targeted web research provide the necessary starting point. However constructed, a focused sample of telemedicine providers is essential for any serious assessment of sector growth.
With this sample, the next step is understanding scale and adoption. Providers can be surveyed about the proportion of consultations or follow-ups conducted remotely, and how that share has changed over time. Patient surveys, where available, help to triangulate: not just the number of virtual visits, but patient preferences, barriers, and the types of conditions most commonly addressed by telehealth. The data almost always show sharp jumps during pandemic lockdowns, followed by a period of recalibration. What matters now is whether the growth in virtual care has settled into a new baseline, or if it continues to evolve.
Understanding reimbursement is equally important. Telemedicine’s viability rests on payment—public, private, or out-of-pocket. Here, the survey work must go deeper, asking about reimbursement rates for virtual versus in-person visits, whether telemedicine is covered at parity, and what portion of overall income providers derive from remote care. The answers reveal both the policy environment and the practical incentives driving adoption.
Cost savings are harder to pin down, but worth the effort. For providers, questions center on whether virtual consultations reduce overhead—lower need for physical space, fewer support staff—or simply transfer costs elsewhere, such as investment in technology and cybersecurity. For patients, the calculus is often about time and travel saved. System-level data—on average reimbursement per encounter, resource utilization, or rates of follow-up—can, where available, round out the picture. The emerging consensus is that telemedicine can drive efficiency, but the extent depends on context and implementation.
There are inevitable limitations. Not all providers are accurately coded; many deliver hybrid models that shift fluidly between physical and virtual settings. Some patient populations remain underserved due to technology access or regulatory barriers. Even so, the discipline of isolating the telemedicine subsector within ISIC 8623, then building up a picture through survey data and careful triangulation, provides clarity where generalizations would otherwise prevail.
For policymakers, the resulting analysis is more than academic. It helps shape reimbursement policy, informs investment in digital infrastructure, and identifies gaps—regions or populations where telemedicine remains an aspiration rather than a reality. As the sector matures, ongoing data collection and refinement of classification systems will be necessary. But even now, the combination of ISIC-based tracking and thoughtful, practical research methods offers the best way to understand and shape the future of telemedicine.