Telehealth—virtual consultations, remote diagnostics, digital prescriptions—felt like a novelty for most of the past decade. Before the pandemic thrust it into the spotlight, its growth was incremental, often limited to pilot projects or specialized clinics. For analysts trying to quantify this quiet shift, ISIC 8621 (General medical practice) provided both a starting point and a set of challenges.
The first step is to identify which healthcare providers, among those registered under ISIC 8621, were offering telehealth services. This isn’t always straightforward. Most registries code practices by their broadest function—general medical care—rather than their delivery methods. Analysts need to dig into secondary sources: clinic websites, health ministry registries of telehealth-licensed providers, and, in some cases, digital health startup directories. A growing number of practices list video consultations, online appointment systems, or remote prescription services—markers that telehealth is part of their portfolio.
Having mapped out the field, the next step is to estimate how widespread these services actually were. This is where patient survey data becomes invaluable. National health surveys, industry reports, or academic studies often include questions about how patients accessed care: in-person, by phone, or online. Cross-referencing the location of ISIC 8621-registered clinics with survey responses lets analysts estimate what share of patients actually used telehealth before COVID-19, and whether uptake was concentrated in urban areas, among certain age groups, or within particular health systems.
Combining these sources builds a nuanced picture. In many places, telehealth was still a niche—used for after-hours advice or rural consultations, not routine care. The pace of adoption often depended as much on local regulation and reimbursement policy as on technology. By late 2019, some clinics reported a growing share of appointments held virtually, while others found that digital offerings remained underutilized, either because of limited patient demand or persistent skepticism among clinicians.
This approach also helps reveal barriers that shaped telehealth’s pre-pandemic trajectory: patchy broadband, privacy concerns, lack of integration with electronic medical records, or insurance schemes that didn’t reimburse for digital visits. These details, surfaced by layering ISIC 8621 registry data with direct patient feedback, show that telehealth’s later surge wasn’t simply about new technology, but also about a system learning (sometimes reluctantly) to adapt.
Of course, the numbers are only part of the story. Even as telehealth grew, its full potential was hampered by inertia, habit, and policy gaps. Yet, this pre-pandemic baseline—grounded in careful mapping and patient experience—sets the stage for understanding just how dramatic the acceleration became once COVID-19 arrived. For those looking back, it’s a reminder that real change is always building, quietly, long before it becomes the new normal.