Few sectors have changed as visibly or as rapidly in recent years as healthcare. The shift to telemedicine, once seen as a distant possibility, accelerated abruptly under the pressure of the pandemic. Now, as demand for remote medical services persists, policymakers and economists find themselves searching for better ways to measure, understand, and project the trajectory of telehealth. The International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), and in particular code 8623—encompassing medical and dental practice activities, including a telemedicine subcategory—offers a valuable, if imperfect, tool for tracking these developments.
The first step in any such analysis is to examine new firm registrations under ISIC 8623. Most national business registries, now accustomed to the proliferation of online health platforms, record entries specifically identifying telemedicine services. Annual or quarterly data on new entries provide a first proxy for sectoral growth. A sharp uptick in registrations suggests rising entrepreneurial activity, and—if sustained—may herald longer-term change in healthcare delivery models. However, interpreting these numbers requires caution. Not all new entrants will survive, and some existing clinics may add telehealth services without re-registering under a new code. Still, year-over-year trends in 8623 remain one of the clearest quantitative signals available.
For a more complete picture, analysts should supplement registration data with information about service provision and patient adoption. Surveys play a crucial role here. By polling providers, one can estimate the proportion of medical consultations now delivered via telemedicine versus in-person visits. On the patient side, survey questions about recent healthcare experiences—How many appointments were virtual? What platforms were used? Were patients satisfied with the experience?—shed light on usage patterns and demand elasticity. In countries where national health insurance reimburses telehealth services, claims data can serve as a powerful additional source, revealing not just usage but also payment flows and, by extension, the economic footprint of telemedicine.
Beyond simple counts, analysts may wish to stratify new entries by subcategory: platforms offering synchronous video consultations, those focused on asynchronous communication (like secure messaging or digital symptom checking), and hybrid models combining remote and in-person care. Each has different implications for patient access, clinical outcomes, and future market structure. The granularity of ISIC coding will vary by jurisdiction—some registers may allow for detailed subcodes, others not—but the principle remains the same: the more precise the classification, the more actionable the resulting analysis.
Another crucial step is projecting future workforce needs. As telemedicine expands, the demand for healthcare professionals shifts. Economists can use data on firm growth under ISIC 8623, combined with provider surveys and national workforce statistics, to estimate future shortages or surpluses. For example, a rapid rise in telehealth startups may indicate upcoming demand for IT-literate healthcare staff, remote triage nurses, and digital health support teams. Conversely, if traditional practices begin to close or consolidate, this may signal a need for retraining programs or adjustments to medical education curricula.
Modeling these needs involves several layers. Historical data on staffing patterns within telemedicine firms, cross-referenced with patient volume and service offerings, provide a baseline. Scenarios can then be constructed: if virtual consultations reach a certain percentage of total healthcare encounters, how many new clinicians, IT specialists, or administrative staff will be required? How does this compare to current training pipelines? Sensitivity analysis is useful here, allowing policymakers to plan for a range of outcomes rather than a single forecast.
International comparisons, while tempting, must be approached carefully. The pace of telehealth adoption, regulatory environments, and coding practices differ widely. In some countries, nearly all medical practices have added telemedicine capabilities; in others, the market remains fragmented. Policy changes—such as relaxing licensure requirements for cross-border care, or expanding insurance coverage for digital health—often drive surges in firm registrations that may or may not reflect true underlying demand. Adjusting for such context is essential for meaningful benchmarking.
Despite these complexities, ISIC 8623 registrations offer a valuable leading indicator. When combined with careful survey design, usage data, and thoughtful projection of workforce needs, the result is a much clearer understanding of how telemedicine is reshaping healthcare. The data is rarely perfect, but the discipline of connecting firm entries, usage patterns, and workforce planning provides a sound methodological foundation. As the sector continues to evolve, the ability to track these changes with rigor—and to anticipate their effects—will remain indispensable for effective policy and economic planning.