How embracing virtual healthcare could lead to a more environmentally sustainable healthcare system

Virtual healthcare isn’t just beneficial for patients, it can also have less impact on the environment than in-hospital treatment.

This is the finding of new research commissioned by Medibank and conducted by Edge Impact. The research evaluated the environmental impacts of different treatments for managing pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis and the release of the findings coincides with World Environment Day 2025.

World Environment Day is the United Nations’ flagship day for raising awareness of environmental issues. Observed annually on June 5, it brings together governments, businesses, communities and individuals worldwide to tackle our most pressing environmental challenges. This includes reducing the environmental impact of providing vital healthcare. In Australia, the healthcare sector contributes around 5.3% of Australia's annual greenhouse gas emissions^.

The Virtual Health vs. In-Hospital Osteoarthritis Treatment in Australian Urban and Rural Settings report used a life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of Medibank’s Better Knee, Better Me program and in-hospital treatment across urban and rural settings. The Better Knee, Better Me program is a virtual health program designed to manage pain caused by knee osteoarthritis without resorting to surgery and is offered to patients where clinically appropriate.

Medibank’s life cycle assessment involved analysing potential environmental 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. It also looked at their 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.

Understanding the environmental impact of Better Knee, Better Me

The assessment found that the virtual health scenarios had lower environmental impacts than in-hospital care across most indicators. This is 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. Virtual health scenarios generated approximately 59% less waste than in-hospital care scenarios.

In urban settings, the virtual health scenarios’ environmental impact was 33–72% of the impact observed in the in-hospital care scenario across most midpoint indicators and 36–39% across endpoint impacts. In rural areas, the virtual health scenarios’ environmental impact was 33–55% of the impact seen in the in-hospital care scenario across most midpoint indicators and 34–37% across endpoint impacts.

In all the virtual health scenarios, the Better Knee, Better Me welcome pack – which included a Fitbit, resistance bands, a digital scale, a measuring tape, a recipe book and printed resources – was a major contributor to the environmental impact.

Medibank Group Lead – People, Spaces & Sustainability, Kylie Bishop said that while the research was defined to one scenario, the findings serve as a valuable example and will 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.”

Medibank Group Lead – Amplar Health, Rob Read added: “Treating patients where they are, rather than asking them to travel to a clinic or hospital, not only improves accessibility to important healthcare, but is better for our environment.”

Identifying environmental hotspots in care scenarios

The report also found that the difference in environmental impacts between urban and rural areas was primarily due to the greater distance patients and medical staff in rural areas travelled to medical facilities.

Transport to medical facilities significantly influenced key environmental indicators – including global warming potential, ozone depletion and terrestrial and fossil resource scarcity – particularly in rural settings, with virtual health showing more consistent benefits across both settings.

“Ultimately, our analysis demonstrates that delivering healthcare programs virtually can significantly reduce their environmental impact,” said Ms Bishop.

“These findings are particularly important given that the healthcare sector currently contributes 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. We’re committed to building on this work to help create a more sustainable health system.”

To learn more about the environmental impact of different treatments for managing pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis, download the report.

^https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/national-health-and-climate-strategy.pdf