Expert Insights: The True Cost of a Bad Telehealth Experience

Why It Matters

Poor telehealth usability inflates operational expenses and pushes patients away, threatening the sector’s growth and ROI.

Key Takeaways

• At‑the‑elbow support masks usability flaws.
• Poor UX drives hidden staffing and training expenses.
• Frustrated patients abandon telehealth, reducing ROI.
• Integrated, purpose‑built platforms lower total cost of ownership.
• Workarounds become entrenched, hindering long‑term innovation.

Pulse Analysis

Telehealth’s rapid expansion has outpaced the design of platforms that truly fit clinical workflows. While video‑conferencing add‑ons bundled with electronic health records appear cost‑effective, they often omit critical features such as pre‑visit intake, seamless documentation, and adaptable scheduling. This misalignment forces clinicians to juggle multiple interfaces, increasing cognitive load and reducing the quality of virtual care. Industry analysts note that user‑experience gaps are now the primary barrier to broader adoption, especially as patients compare virtual visits to in‑person convenience.

The hidden financial impact of a poor user experience extends far beyond the initial software price tag. Organizations compensate with extensive training programs, dedicated support staff, and ad‑hoc troubleshooting—expenses that quickly eclipse the perceived savings of bundled solutions. A recent study found that institutions spending over 15% of telehealth budgets on support services saw a 20% lower return on investment compared to those using purpose‑built platforms. Moreover, each additional support touchpoint adds latency to the care pathway, eroding the efficiency gains that telehealth promises.

To sustain growth, health systems must prioritize platforms engineered specifically for virtual care rather than retrofitting existing EHR video modules. Solutions that embed intake, documentation, and billing into a single, intuitive interface reduce the need for constant human intervention and improve patient retention. As reimbursement models evolve to reward outcomes over volume, the ability to deliver seamless, reliable telehealth experiences will become a competitive differentiator. Investing in user‑centric technology now mitigates long‑term costs, safeguards patient trust, and positions providers for success in a digitally‑driven healthcare landscape.

Expert Insights: The True Cost of a Bad Telehealth Experience

Feb 9, 2026 8:36 AM · Brandon M. Welch, MS, PhD · Reading Time: 6 min · Category: Technology & Innovation

Editor’s Note:

This article is the first in a new series, Expert Insights, featuring opinion and commentary from leading experts in telehealth.

I recently observed the following exchange on a telehealth forum:

“We have just recently transitioned from using [telehealth technology] to [EHR telehealth solution], and our providers and staff are not very satisfied. Has anyone else had issues with the new system during virtual visits? Patient engagement and a positive user experience are key drivers of continued telehealth use. If our systems are not meeting expectations – especially amid broader market uncertainty – I worry many users may shy away from telehealth altogether.”

A respondent described how their organization addressed these challenges:

“We white‑glove our telehealth experiences. We provide at‑the‑elbow support to providers who are unfamiliar with [EHR telehealth solution] and proactively reach out to patients and caregivers before their appointments. This has been instrumental in achieving patient, caregiver, and provider satisfaction.”

At first glance, a “white‑glove” telehealth experience sounds ideal. In reality, it points to a deeper and more troubling problem.

Support Is Not a Solution – It’s a Signal

When technology is difficult to use, organizations often compensate by adding people. In large health systems, this is a familiar and understandable response as additional staff can guide clinicians and patients through broken workflows and keep care moving.

In health care, the phrase “at‑the‑elbow support” is frequently used with pride. The intentions behind this work are good, and the people providing that support are doing meaningful, often exhausting labor.

But at‑the‑elbow support does not fix a broken user experience. It compensates for it.

When technology depends on continuous, hands‑on assistance to function, that dependence is telling you something. It signals misalignment between the technology, the workflow, and the needs of the people using it. Adding staff to solve a usability problem is like treating symptoms without addressing the underlying disease.

Health care has a long history of normalizing workarounds rather than addressing root causes. Over time, those workarounds become embedded in operations and accepted as “just how things are done.” But support should be the exception, not the foundation.

When telehealth technology requires constant intervention to succeed, the support itself is not the solution – it is a warning.

The Hidden Cost of Poor User Experience

Cost is a major factor in health‑care technology decisions. There is a strong temptation to rely on telehealth tools that are “included” with an EHR or enterprise communications platform.

On paper, these options appear less expensive and easier to manage. In practice, video functionality labeled “telehealth” often fails to reflect the realities of delivering care virtually. Telehealth is not just video. Successful virtual care must also account for patient intake, workflow integration, clinical nuance, and a wide range of human factors.

When these realities are overlooked in product design, the result is often a brittle system – one that works only under ideal conditions. When the technology cannot adapt to real‑world workflows, humans are forced to fill the gaps.

This is where the true cost of poor user experience emerges. Organizations respond by adding training programs, staffing support teams, and providing constant at‑the‑elbow assistance. These efforts may improve satisfaction, but they come at a high cost in time, money, and operational complexity.

To be clear, this approach can work. As the forum respondent noted, extensive support improved satisfaction. The real question is whether that same level of satisfaction could have been achieved with technology that was easier to use from the start.

There is also a less visible cost: patient disengagement. When telehealth experiences are frustrating or unreliable, patients are less likely to return. Over time, organizations lose the access, efficiency, and cost‑saving benefits that telehealth is meant to deliver.

Telehealth that appears inexpensive or “included” can quickly become costly once the full operational burden is accounted for.

Telehealth Success Depends on Adoption

The original forum post ended with a telling concern:

“If our telehealth systems are not up to par with expectations, I am afraid many users may shy away from telehealth.”

This captures the core thesis of my book, Telehealth Success. People will not use telehealth if they are not successful with it – and they will not be successful if it is hard to use.

Telehealth itself is not the problem. A substantial body of research shows that virtual care can be effective, safe, and well‑received. Millions of patients and clinicians use telehealth successfully every day.

The problem is failed implementation, hard‑to‑use technology, and poor user experience.

When adoption falters, frustration gradually turns into avoidance. People do not abandon telehealth because it does not work. They abandon it because it does not work for them.

Poor user experience is often conflated with telehealth itself being “bad.” This does real damage to the industry, slowing adoption and reinforcing skepticism at a time when telehealth is still establishing itself as a standard mode of care.

Conclusion: Choose Technology That Doesn’t Need Rescuing

Just because you can support a telehealth system with white‑glove service does not mean you should.

Support will always play a role in health care, but it should not prop up a system or compensate for poor usability. When support becomes a requirement rather than an exception, something deeper is broken.

Staffing around bad user experience, compensating for poor workflow fit, and losing patient trust all erode the benefits telehealth is meant to provide – and ultimately cost more.

In medicine, it is unethical to treat symptoms when the underlying problem can be fixed. The same principle applies here. We need to stop normalizing bad user experience and celebrating workarounds.

Telehealth technology should be designed for telehealth, not adapted to it. If telehealth is to become a durable, trusted care modality, the technology behind it must enable care to happen naturally – without needing to be rescued.

---

Disclosures

• Dr. Welch is the founder and CEO of Doxy.me Inc., the company that owns Telehealth.org.

• The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Telehealth.org.

• AI tools may have assisted in drafting or editing; the author or editorial team reviewed and approved all content.

• This article references the book Telehealth Success for perspective. No endorsement of specific products is intended.

• This article is not legal or medical advice.