That’s a big yes according to researchers who used a virtual treatment program for patients with knee osteoarthritis as the basis for a study.
Virtual healthcare doesn’t just improve access and patient outcomes – it also leaves a lighter environmental footprint according to researchers.
That’s the headline finding from a new report released by Medibank and environmental consultancy Edge Impact.
The study, Virtual Health vs. In-Hospital Osteoarthritis Treatment in Australian Urban and Rural Settings, compared the environmental impact of virtual versus in-hospital care for knee osteoarthritis, using Medibank’s Better Knee, Better Me program as a case study.
The virtual health program is designed to manage pain caused by knee osteoarthritis without resorting to surgery and is offered to patients where clinically appropriate.
The life cycle assessment (LCA), completed in November 2024, analysed impacts of representative treatment scenarios and assessing their impact on midpoint indicators, such as global warming, human non-carcinogenic toxicity, water consumption and ozone formation.
“LCA is a widely used and comprehensive framework for evaluating potential environmental impacts across the life cycle stages of a product or service,” the report’s authors wrote.
“It involves assessing environmental impacts, identifying hotspots, facilitating peer comparisons, aiding in new designs, pinpointing areas for improvement, communicating benefits relative to competitors, and supporting sustainability certifications.”
The study also looked at endpoint impacts on human health, biodiversity and resource scarcity. For this study, researchers considered in-hospital and virtual healthcare scenarios in rural and urban settings. They also considered various treatment stages, such as GP and clinic visits, surgery and in-hospital and home rehabilitation.
The assessment found that the virtual health scenarios had lower environmental impacts than in-hospital care across most indicators. This was mainly due to the materials, substances and utilities required during the surgery and rehabilitation stages of the in-hospital scenario and the waste generated during these stages.
Related
Compared to in-hospital care, virtual delivery of the Better Knee, Better Me program generated:
- 59% less waste;
- 33-72% lower environmental impact across midpoint indicators in urban areas
- 36-39% lower impact on endpoint indicators such as human health and biodiversity in urban areas;
- 33-55% lower midpoint impacts and 34-37% lower endpoint impacts in rural areas.
The environmental advantage was even more pronounced in rural areas, where travel to healthcare facilities significantly increased emissions. Transport-related impacts – particularly on global warming potential and fossil resource use – were far lower when patients received care virtually.
However, the study did identify one hotspot in the virtual model: the Better Knee, Better Me welcome pack. Containing a Fitbit, resistance bands, scales, printed resources, and more, the kit contributed meaningfully to the program’s footprint – suggesting an opportunity for future sustainability improvements.
Kylie Bishop, Medibank’s group lead for people, spaces and sustainability, said that while the research was defined to one scenario, the findings served as a valuable example and would help guide more sustainable decision-making at Medibank.
“Improving our understanding of the environmental implications of virtual health and in-hospital treatment options is a valuable first step for shaping a more sustainable healthcare system,” she said.
“We want to further explore whether virtual health preventative management programs, beyond their clear health and financial benefits, could also contribute to reduced environmental impact compared to traditional in-hospital treatments.”
Ms Bishop said the findings were particularly important given that the healthcare sector contributed more than 5% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
“By exploring more efficient, lower-emission models, we can help decarbonise the system without compromising patient outcomes,” she said.
“We’re committed to building on this work to help create a more sustainable health system.”
Medibank wasn’t the only organisation to release a report in line with World Environment Day this week.
Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association Limited’s Deeble Institute for Health Policy Research also shared its latest Issues Brief – Consideration of Environmental Impacts in Health Technology Assessment (HTA).
The report urged government and industry to take immediate action and called for environmental sustainability to be embedded into healthcare decision-making, design and delivery as part of business-as-usual operations.
Co-authored by Deeble Institute Scholar Jake Williams, the Brief identifies HTA as a key opportunity to drive this change. HTA was a critical process used to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and value of new health technologies, however, environmental impacts were not routinely taken into consideration.
“This is a major gap,” said AHHA CEO Tony Farley.
“We have a clear pathway to include environmental impacts through Health Technology Assessment, but we’re not taking full advantage of the opportunity.”
While recognising the complexity of the process, a key priority outlined in the Brief was to implement Recommendation 43 of the federal government’s recent HTA Review. This recommendation calls for integrating environmental considerations into assessment processes and would ensure that sustainability is considered alongside clinical and economic factors when evaluating new health technologies.
To support this shift, rigorous testing of existing methods for incorporating environmental impacts into HTA was necessary, along with building national capacity. Investment in high-quality environmental data, particularly through life cycle assessments (LCAs), was needed, as well as investment in workforce training to equip healthcare professionals with the skills to apply sustainability principles.
“Environmental sustainability must become a core part of how we assess and deliver healthcare,” Mr Farley said.
“By embedding environmental considerations into HTA, we can make more responsible, evidence-based decisions that benefit both people and the planet.”
Australia’s health system was a major contributor to national greenhouse gas emissions and reducing these was a “pressing priority”, the authors wrote in their summary of the report.
“One way to address this is to consider the environmental impacts of healthcare in health technology assessments (HTA) and decision-making processes. HTA is complex, and there is no current consensus that environmental impacts should be formally considered within it,” they wrote.
“Work to determine if this is acceptable in Australia, and how it could be implemented, should be prioritised. This should align with similar work underway by international
counterparts. The range of methods available to include environmental impacts in HTAs have not been thoroughly tested in Australia. The benefits and limitations of proposed methods need to be explored to understand their feasibility, and their impact on the decision-making process.”
Recommendations from the report included:
- Prioritise environmental considerations in HTA reform: Recommendation 43 of the HTA Review must be given genuine consideration, backed by clear timelines for assessing feasibility and implementation options.
- Test methods available to include environmental impacts in HTA: The range of methods available to include environmental impacts in HTA should be tested in the Australian context to understand the benefits, limitations, and feasibility of their use on the decision-making process.
- Build capacity to generate environmental impact data: Australia’s capacity to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions of healthcare products and services should be strengthened. This will require an investment in the skills required to conduct life cycle assessments and for environmental data to be shared and made available.
Read the full report here.