In addition to the details incorporated in the chart above, here are the five most important takeaways to know about virtual-first products now.

1. Plans have seen some satisfactory results with VFPs but not yet clinical nor cost-saving results.

For plans, VFPs should provide a way to increase preventative care utilization and steer care toward low-cost, in-network options. For members, these products can increase access to convenient virtual care and engaging digital platforms. But most virtual-first products on the market have not yet produced the full range of these outcomes. While data has emerged showing that virtual-first products—when done well—can boost access to care and member experience, they haven’t garnered the clinical and cost-saving benefits that are more longitudinal in nature. Time may show that virtual-first products can deliver on these promises in the long-run. But, since many of these products have rolled out only in the past year or so, health plans are largely still in the data-collection phase.

2. Virtual-first products lack differentiation—within health plans and between competitors.

Little strategic differentiation exists when comparing one health plan’s virtual-first product to a competitors’ product. They tend to all offer a combination of $0 virtual visits with in-network referrals. Furthermore, a plan’s dedicated virtual-first product may lack differentiation when compared to the plan’s other offerings. Many plans already provide virtual visits and virtual primary care as a benefit with existing plans. While these options may be available at a lower cost to members on a virtual-first plan, some of these products simply rebrand benefits that plans already offer. An opportunity exists for plans to differentiate their virtual-first products, both internally and externally, through additional offerings such as wearable devices or access to home-based care.

3. Plans are partnering with third-party vendors rather than relying on current network providers.

Most plans with a virtual-first product have turned to third-party providers to offer virtual care. This is somewhat expected. Companies like Teladoc and Amwell already have physicians staffed around the clock and offer a digital infrastructure that can support a plan’s utilization goals. These third-party providers can also integrate their services with the plan’s network, referring members to downstream care with affiliated providers. But there is not a single set path to partnership. Health plans must navigate a market increasingly saturated with digital providers, and vendors must differentiate their products to effectively market to plans. Read more in our article “Four capabilities health plans are looking for in a virtual-first primary care partner.”

4. Virtual-first products aren’t just for young, tech-savvy members—as was once thought.

Given the technological nature of telehealth, plans at first thought that virtual-first products would mostly attract young, educated, and healthy members. But with a couple years of market research under their belts, plans found that a wide range of member subgroups were interested in and utilizing virtual-first products. Some additional groups of members who were interested in VFPs included:

• Older adults who don’t want to travel for care
• Members with chronic conditions who need frequent care
• Mothers who want immediate answers for their young children
• Employees who travel often for work
• Cash-strapped members who value affordability over all else
• Members in rural areas far from many primary care providers

5. The biggest challenges plans still face with VFPs are member education and transition to in-person care.

Plans have not yet perfected VFPs since they’re still relatively new. These are the two hardest challenges that plans shared they are still tackling:

• Member education: By virtue of their novelty, virtual-first products are generally not well understood by both members and providers. When outreaching to interested and enrolled members, plans must proactively communicate exactly what the virtual-first product offers, what the expectation is for seeking virtual or in-person care, and how that expectation changes in emergency situations.
• Transition to in-person care: Plans want to use telehealth platforms to transition members to in-network, high-value providers for in-person care but there’s still a lot lacking here. Members might not actually go to the in-person follow up care, and even if they do, they won’t have a good experience if the virtual primary care physician can’t share notes with the in-person physician and vice versa to close the referral loop.

The future of virtual-first products is unwritten. There are two very different scenarios that could play out for virtual-first products. They could become ubiquitous to the point where virtual-first becomes the default for most products. This is likely if the first mover plans see success and share those results, all member groups become comfortable with virtual-first, and vendors improve the in-person transition.

On the other hand, VFPs could become a niche product exclusively attractive tech-savvy plans and members. This scenario will happen if the first mover plans can’t show results beyond enrollment, other consumers can’t understand how to use them, and only specific employers want VFPs to keep a small, tech-savvy group of employees happy.