Why Some Conditions Need an In-Person Visit, Not Virtual Care

Telemedicine has become part of everyday care, and for good reason; it allows patients to connect with a physician from home, from work, or while traveling; and many problems can be managed safely and effectively through video visits. But not everything belongs in a virtual setting.

I follow guidelines, like the ones Teladoc, MDLive, and Amwell use, that help decide what’s safe to manage online and what has to be seen in person. Those rules aren’t arbitrary. They’re built around safety, the limits of a video encounter, and the risk of missing something serious.

What Actually Keeps a Visit Off Camera

Some diagnoses depend on a tool or a test that doesn’t exist on a video call. An ear infection needs a direct look at the eardrum through an otoscope. Ear pain alone could just as easily mean wax buildup, dental pain, or referred throat irritation, and without visualizing the drum, the real cause gets missed (swimmer’s ear is the exception, along with cases where a family can upload a high-quality otoscope photo). A suspected blood clot in the leg, deep vein thrombosis, has exactly one way to confirm or rule out: an ultrasound, which no video visit can provide. Pneumonia works the same way. A cough that persists, worsens, or comes with fever and shortness of breath needs a chest x-ray and sometimes labs. Neither of which exists on a screen. Pediatric urinary tract infections need a urine sample tested before treatment. And abnormal uterine bleeding, which can signal serious gynecologic issues, usually needs labs or imaging to sort out.

Other conditions need hands-on assessment. Looking is not enough. Post-operative pain that’s worsening rather than expected can mean infection, bleeding, or a wound problem, and a physical exam is needed to check for swelling, drainage, or fever. Post-op patients are safest going back to their surgeon. Mastitis is similar. Breast pain and redness in a breastfeeding patient could be simple mastitis or could be an abscess that needs drainage. And a virtual exam cannot reliably tell the difference. Any laceration or wound that needs stitches has to be assessed and repaired in person; so do animal bites, dog, cat, or human, because of the infection risk and sometimes rabies exposure; and wound care, tetanus updates, and rabies prophylaxis all have to happen in the room.

A third group can turn dangerous fast and needs hospital-level resources. A fever over 103°F, or any systemic illness, can point to sepsis, meningitis, pneumonia, or another serious infection needing immediate labs, imaging, or IV treatment. Suspected meningitis, headache with fever and a stiff neck, needs immediate hospital evaluation with spinal fluid testing and IV antibiotics. It cannot be managed on a screen. Croup in a child, the barking cough and stridor, can worsen quickly enough that treatments like racemic epinephrine or oxygen have to happen in person and urgently. A skin abscess on the face, or periorbital cellulitis, can spread to deeper tissue including the brain and needs urgent evaluation, often with IV antibiotics. Suspected sepsis or a bloodstream infection has to be treated urgently in a hospital, full stop. Unexplained abdominal pain could be appendicitis, gallbladder disease, a bowel obstruction, or another emergency. And usually needs imaging and labs to sort out. Chest pain gets taken most seriously of all. It can represent a heart attack, a pulmonary embolism, or another life-threatening problem, and it gets an urgent in-person evaluation every time. The same logic covers a headache described as the worst of someone’s life, which can mean bleeding in the brain or meningitis; a concussion or closed head injury, which needs a neurologic exam and sometimes imaging; and eye problems like a foreign body, a chemical burn, sudden vision loss, or trauma, all of which need immediate in-person evaluation.

A last group has nothing to do with how sick someone looks and everything to do with what has to happen in a room. Controlled substances, stimulants, opioids, benzodiazepines, carry real risk of misuse and dependence. So regulations require in-person visits for initiation and refills. Some STD treatments need an in-office procedure; genital warts are the clearest example. And anything tied to a work-related claim, FMLA paperwork, workers’ comp, a disability determination, usually needs physical documentation and an in-person exam to be valid.

What About Rashes?

Rashes are a gray zone in telemedicine. Sometimes they are straightforward, like ringworm or athlete’s foot, and can be treated virtually with antifungal creams. Other times they are difficult to interpret. Safely treating a rash through telemedicine depends heavily on two things. The quality of the photo the patient uploads and a detailed medical history.

If the picture is blurry, poorly lit, or taken at the wrong angle, it may be impossible to tell the difference between something benign and something serious. Something like shingles or cellulitis. Even with good photos, asking the right questions, when it started, whether it itches, spreads, or comes with fever, can take time to sort out.

Diagnosing rashes virtually can sometimes be challenging, which is exactly why tele-dermatology has become its own field. Companies such as Teladoc now offer access to board-certified dermatologists who specialize in skin conditions. Patients can upload high-quality images and receive expert input, which improves accuracy and treatment options.

Conditions That Can Often Be Managed Virtually

Plenty of complaints are safe to handle over video: viral upper respiratory infections, sinus infections, uncomplicated urinary tract infections, mild to moderate asthma exacerbations, vaginal yeast infections, bronchitis without red-flag symptoms, most pink eye, cold sores, sprains and strains, seasonal allergies, skin conditions like eczema, ringworm, and jock itch, uncomplicated headaches or low back pain, and early or uncomplicated dental infections.

When a “Simple” Complaint Turns Out Not to Be

Patients don’t always see the warnings that some conditions can’t be managed online, and even when they do, some push back because getting to a clinic in person is inconvenient or expensive. Sometimes what looks straightforward at first turns into something else once the clarifying questions start: a “sinus infection” complaint that turns out to be severe facial swelling, a “back pain” complaint that turns out to come with fever and urinary incontinence. In my own practice, abdominal pain is the one that converts to an in-person visit almost every time, because it needs a hands-on exam. Boils and abscesses, febrile urinary tract infections, and rashes I can’t visualize well enough on a photo make up most of the rest.

Where These Guidelines Come From

Companies such as Teladoc, MDLive, and Amwell built their red-flag lists after years of clinical review. The goal is to prevent missed diagnoses and keep telemedicine a safe, effective model of care. These rules protect both patients and providers.

Telemedicine is powerful. It expands access and provides convenience. But it has boundaries. When I recommend that a patient be seen in person, it’s because safe, thorough care sometimes needs tools and testing. A video screen simply can’t provide them. When a patient pushes back, I tell them plainly that an in-person evaluation is needed for their own safety. If they keep insisting on staying virtual, I decline and explain that telemedicine has its own standards of care, similar to an in-person visit, built around guidelines that protect patients. Most understand. Not all of them agree.

Scott Rennie, D.O.
Board Certified in Obesity Medicine and Family Medicine

This blog is for educational purposes only and does not constitute individual medical advice. Always consult your own physician before making changes to your health, medications, or treatment plan.

Why Are Some U.S. Physicians Moving to Canada to Practice?

I have had several conversations recently with colleagues who are seriously considering leaving the U.S. to practice in Canada. This is not happening quietly. Interest from U.S.-trained physicians in moving north has jumped sharply over the past year, and the reasons run deeper than any single administration or policy.

American physicians looked at Canada as an option well before the current political moment. What changed is the volume. CanAm Physician Recruiting reported a 65 percent increase in inquiries between January and April, with some days bringing calls from as many as 15 U.S. doctors asking about moving immediately.

The licensing numbers tell the same story. According to the Medical Council of Canada, U.S. physicians creating accounts on physiciansapply.ca, typically the first step toward licensure, rose from 71 to 615 over seven months. That is a 765 percent increase. Ontario registered 116 U.S.-trained doctors in the first quarter of 2025, at least 50 percent more than the prior two quarters. British Columbia licensed 28 U.S.-trained physicians in the fiscal year ending February 2025, roughly triple the year before.

KFF Health News reported on one emergency physician, identified only as Michael, who moved his family to Canada this year. He described the work of a physician as “being kind to people who are in their weakest place,” and said he no longer saw that reflected in the country he was practicing in. KFF and NPR granted him anonymity because he feared reprisal if he returned to the U.S.

Canada’s publicly funded system is part of the draw. Physicians cite fewer administrative obstacles and more stability. Licensing rules have also loosened to help fill shortages, which lowers the barrier for U.S. doctors considerably.

Canada has its own problems, and they are not small. The country needs roughly 23,000 more family physicians to meet current demand. Surgical wait times and crowded emergency departments are real. For a lot of American physicians the trade is still worth making.

Universal coverage carries weight of its own. When every patient is covered, the work shifts back toward care and away from arguing about whether a medication or a scan will be approved. I think about my family in Isokyrö, Finland, where this is simply how it works. They do not worry about losing insurance when they change jobs. They do not put off care because of what it will cost. It is treated as a basic obligation of a society, and it feeds the trust people have in their physicians.

Recent shifts in U.S. health policy are pushing more doctors to look north. The American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians have all criticized changes to federal vaccine guidance, including the removal of COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women, decisions made outside the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and appointments of individuals with a documented history of vaccine skepticism. These groups have filed suit and issued public statements about the erosion of evidence-based policy.

None of this is hypothetical. I know a family physician who left a chaotic Texas clinic for a small town in Ontario. She gave up income and proximity to family. What she got back was the ability to practice the way she was trained to, without political interference.

Leaving is hard. Licenses, families, and routines hold people where they are. But when physicians feel their core values are under threat, a move like this stops looking dramatic and starts looking reasonable. That is the part worth paying attention to. This is not really a trend. It is a symptom.

If you are curious about Canadian licensing or how this shift might affect your own career, I am glad to talk it through. We all went into medicine to take care of people, and a fair number of our colleagues are going where they believe they can still do it.

Scott Rennie, D.O.
Board Certified in Obesity Medicine and Family Medicine

This blog is for educational purposes only and does not constitute individual medical advice. Always consult your own physician before making changes to your health, medications, or treatment plan.

Sources: