Even you, innocently voiced your negative opinion, unknowingly reinforcing the false perception that Telehealth sessions are not a viable option for MFR/physical therapy:
Time 2:26 on the video "Very excited that I was able to use this downtime when I cannot really treat patients, when we are all kinda stuck in our own spaces" through Time 2:37.
I posted this on WhatsApp after listening to Andrea:
Our role together is to inform your clients and prospective clients, usiing your Web Site as your most powerful tool (+CTCT).
The best way to do this is and overcome objectives is through storytelling and your most compelling stories are your testimonials (and eventually case studies - you did a couple via your BLOGs).
Going forward in a virtual environment, your biggest objection is PT is hands-on, that it does not work remotely (people actually cringe up their faces and shake their heads). The story you have so far is mine (ask your Telehealth clients for more). Read my testimonial a few times to help create the story that most powerfully counters your biggest objective to people using your Telehealth services.
I think your next biggest objection is Technology - theraLink goes a long way toward simplifying that, and taking on that objection, BUT WE NEED TO TELL THAT STORY (next week).
I think your third objection to your Telehealth services is the lack of touch, with the massage ball being the only physical substitute (and just an OK one at that, difficult to stay in position by yourself). I personally miss your responsive touch in a remote session. Your voice and visual communication help.
After COVID-19 winds down, I would say that 98% of your Telehealth clients will want to see you in person. Fortunately, by and large, they live within 20 miles of 95th Street and the Tristate, and that is why we need to review the Web site in terms of explaining the value of how you can help people you have never and will never meet.