Archive | Books / Articles RSS feed for this section

Dynamic Journey Mapping and P2P

I’ve talked several times about what P2P (peer-to-peer) healthcare is.  We have examples of PatientsLikeMe and CureTogether.  This is something that Pew has talked about several times over the years.  Additionally, here’s a blog post by Susannah Fox on this.  The point is that people turn to Dr. Google and social media often before they talk to a healthcare professional.  That’s critical to understand. 

Interestingly, as I was reading the IMS whitepaper on Journey Mapping, it really got me thinking about how all this social listening and patient content can influence and shape the Patient Journey (see example).  We’ve already heard about the influence this channel is having on clinical trials.  And, we know that Big Data trends are driving lots of new data sources for analysis and insights.  I think this JAMA list is a good starting point.  But, as Jane Sarasohn-Kahn points out, we can’t forget about the Open Notes initiative and the power that it will bring with it. 

The question of course is how this will all be reflected in the way we think about the consumer in all the “patient experience” and “consumer engagement” hype in healthcare.  For example, this image from a Deloitte whitepaper shows some of the ways a health plan can influence the consumer experience.

Consumer Experience Payer

We all know this is tricky, and it’s critical to establish trust between the consumer and the entity influencing the journey.  Health plans and pharmaceutical companies are usually not high on the trust scale. 

That being said, the IMS whitepaper does a good job of pointing out the need to expand beyond the traditional effort of focusing on key influencers.  It’s important to understand the payer view and the patient view in new ways.  It’s also important to understand what matters to each group.  While adherence may seem like the right metric, I would argue that it’s simply the easy metric.  It’s important to really understand the overall health of the patient.  They care about their experience.  They care about their quality of life.  These all need to be factored into the patient journey

Book Review: Social Media In Clinical Practice

I finally had some time to read Dr. Bertalan Mesko’s book called Social Media in Clinical Practice.  I’m a big fan of his blog and a lot of the information he puts out.   I was intrigued to see what he thought was important for clinicians and then to compare that to what I know as someone active in the space. 

Overall, I thought it was a good, quick read for someone who knows very little about social media and all the options out there.  He quickly hits a lot of information:

  • Search engines
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • E-Patients
  • Blogging
  • Twitter
  • Collaboration
  • Wikipedia
  • Second Life
  • Mobile
  • Videos and podcasts
  • E-mail

He provided some reinforcing references and laid out some key reasons for physicians to get involved such as:

  1. Keeping up to date
  2. Sharing and collaborating with other physicians
  3. Improving patient care

I was glad that he brought up the concept of “Information Therapy” which is a term I use a lot, and I think is really important for how providers can direct patients to quality content. 

While he spent a lot of time on Facebook and Google+, I personally would have expected more on Sermo or other physician specific networks. 

I thought the section on e-patients was really important for physicians to understand how to engage and work with them and creating a difference between a “Googler” and an e-patient. 

I knew it was possible, but it was good to see him provide the proper way of citing medical blogs and tweets in medical papers.

I was surprised to see a whole chapter on Second Life.  I never hear anyone talk about that anymore.  At the same time, there wasn’t any focus on LinkedIn or talk about tools like SlideShare.  I think there’s also a need for much more on mobile applications and use of SMS with patients along with a discussion on connected devices ranging from FitBit to more sophisticated tools with feedback and integration into the clinical systems. 

He did have some good suggestions on presentations such as looking at the Lessing Method, PechaKucha, and Guy Kawasaki’s 10/20/30 Rule. 

My overall summary would be that:

  1. If you’re new to the space, it’s a good quick read.
  2. If you’re in the space, you’ll learn a few things, but it’s probably not for you.

Of course, with technology and social media, things change really fast so it’s going to need to be come a more interactive version to keep up with the changes. 

Lessons Learned And MVPs

 I’m a big believer in trying to capture and learn from everything you do.  When you work in the start-up and turnaround space, not everything will be a clear success

After looking back on my time at my last turnaround, there are several clear takeaways:

  1. Demonstrate Incremental Benefits…All The Time.
    1. Taking on long-term projects is dangerous.  Sponsors change.  Markets change.  New technology comes out.  If you’re working on a multi-year transformation, you need to demonstrate incremental wins and have clear milestones.  You should assume you don’t have the next round of funding and build for success at each point.   I could say this is using an Agile approach, but it’s more than that. 
  2. FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS. 
    1. This one probably seems so obvious from the outside looking in, but it’s easy to get carried away with trying to take on too much.  In this particular case, we thought we had a 3-year timeframe to build and deliver on the vision.  We created a vision of care coordination that was really innovative, but we knew that no one had pulled it off before.  We then tried to coordinate care coordination and cost management which also hadn’t been done.  It would have been better to deliver one thing at a time and make ourselves incredibly sticky in that area.
  3. Know Your Customer…Really Well.
    1. When coming into a business, it’s so important to know the customer base and what they feel about the business.  Do they love it?  Do they engage regularly?  Is it just a commodity?  And why.  In this case, clients seemed to love the business, but it was because it was a massively customized business doing all the wrong things.  As we brought the business into compliance and created re-usable processes, it changed the relationship with the customers.  The relationships weren’t sticky, and we didn’t have clear alignment of goals.
  4. Partner Well.
    1. When you’re in the early stages of growth, it’s tempting to try to partner with people bigger and leverage their brand.  While that can help, it’s often a big distraction.  Some times, you commit to something that you can’t achieve putting pressure on a key relationship.  And, other times, you put so much at risk tied to the big company that when you realize that you’re not important to them then you have real challenges.  This gets back to the traditional understanding of buy, build, or partner and understanding your core competencies.
  5. Have A Clear Value Proposition.
    1. You’ll always find early adopters especially when you have a compelling vision, good sales people, and good management.  But, they won’t make your business for you if you can’t clearly demonstrate value.  You have to have access to data.  You have to be able to report on what you do and demonstrate how you’re creating a ROI.  In today’s competitive market, companies without a clear value proposition don’t last long.
  6. Be Different.
    1. This is a tough one.  We all watch the competition and see a path towards success, but as a younger company, trying to compete on price is a sure path to disaster.  Like the Blue Ocean Strategy, you want to compete in a different area.  Find your niche and do it better than anyone else in a way that is really different.  Trying to build something to just catch up always puts you behind. 
  7. Hire Slow and Fire Fast.
    1. This is something many people say, but they don’t always do.  It’s important to get the right team.  It’s important to hire in a logical sequence.  For example, getting a great sales team before your solution is built is great for the pipeline but frustrating to everyone in between.  On the flipside, in a smaller company, a toxic personality or someone that doesn’t fit can kill you.  You need to realize that quickly and let them go.  No one likes to do it, but you do a disservice to everyone else if you keep them. 

The past few years have been really interesting as I learned more about case management, disease management, utilization management, oncology, kidney care, and many other parts of our healthcare system.  The key is leveraging all of this as I move forward in my new role

I think another related topic to think about here is some of the lessons around MVPs (minimum viable products)

I always use the Apple 1 as my case study for an MVP.  

Apple Minimum Viable Product

Is There A Future For Community Oncology?

Cancer costs are expected to reach $174B in the US by 2020.  Right now, it’s about 10-11% of total healthcare spend which makes it a big area of focus within the healthcare industry.

The question is how to manage this spend:

  • Is it about site-of-care and where the care is provided?  (community oncology; Centers of Excellence; outpatient clinics; inpatient)
  • Is it about specialty drugs and how they are managed and charged?  (Buy-and-bill; white-bagging; brown-bagging; on-site pharmacy; 340B)
  • Is it about evidence-based care and following NCCN guidelines or clinical pathways?
  • Is it about palliative care and managing spend in the last 3-6 months of life?
  • Is it about personalized medicine?

One of the challenges is the survival of the community oncology practice (see ASCO report) that is an issue that physicians have struggled with in other specialties.  Over the past few years, we’ve seen continued consolidation of practices with many of them being acquired by hospitals and hospital systems.

In some cases, oncologists have seen a reduction in their income tied to a reduction in buy-and-bill and are looking to be employed in order to continue to maintain their incomes.  They are one of the few medical professions that have seen a reduction in income recently.  At the same time, this trend is also driven by hospitals taking advantage of the 340B pricing which allows them to generate approximately $1M in profit for every oncologist they employ.  And, the complexity of oncology treatment also is prompting the need for a more comprehensive care model which requires a broad set of services which is sometimes difficult for a small practice to provide.

Of course, this shift in care from community oncology to hospitals is driving up costs without a demonstrated improvement in outcomes.  This is driving a lot of payer focus and driving discussions of payment reform whether that’s in the form of ACOs, PCMHs, or bundled payments.  United Healthcare recently released some data from one of their pilots.

This seems like another classic example of misalignment across the industry.  Hospitals clearly see an opportunity to buy up more oncology practices while payers and others are going to push for reform around 340B and payment differences.  Oncologists are struggling to continue providing care but replace the income they were making of buy-and-bill of specialty medications.

I’ve talked to a lot of people about this struggle.  It doesn’t seem clear whether community oncologists are destined for extinction or will payers will find a way to enable them to survive.  The other question is how things like teleoncology, tumor boards, big data, and the focus on prevention and survivorship will ultimately change the care delivery approach to oncology which may impact the role of the community oncologist in the future.

Gilead’s Sovaldi Is The $5.7B Canary In The Coal Mine For Specialty Medications

In case you haven’t been tracking specialty drug costs for the past decade, the recent news with Gilead’s Sovaldi ($GILD) is finally making this topic a front page issue for everyone to be aware of.  I think Dr. Brennan and Dr. Shrank’s viewpoint in JAMA this week did a good job of pointing that issue out.  They make several points:

  • Is this really an issue with Sovaldi or is this an issue with specialty drug prices?
  • Would this really be an issue if it weren’t for the large patient population?
  • Will this profit really continue or are they simply enjoying a small period of profitability before other products come to market?
  • Based on QALY (quality adjusted life years) is this really quick comparable cost to other therapies?

If you haven’t paid attention, here’s a few articles on Sovaldi which did $5.7B in sales in the first half of 2014 and which Gilead claims has CURED 9,000 Hep C patients.

But, don’t think of this as an isolated incident.  Vertex has Kalydeco which is a $300,000 drug for a subset of Cystic Fibrosis patients.  In general, I think this is where many people expected the large drug costs to be which is in orphan conditions or massively personalized drugs where there was a companion diagnostic or some other genetic marker to be used in prescribing the drug.

The rising costs of specialty medications has been a focus but has become the focus in the PBM and pharmacy world over the past few years.  This has led to groups like the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing.  Here’s a few articles on the topic:

Of course, the one voice lost in all of this is that of the patient and the value of a cure to them.  Many people don’t know they have Hepatitis C (HCV), but it can progress and lead to a liver transplant or even ESRD (end state renal disease) which are expensive.  15,000 people die each year in the US due to Hep C (see top reasons for death in the US).  So, drugs like this can be literally and figuratively life savers.  These can change the course of their life by actually curing a lifetime condition.

This topic of specialty drug pricing isn’t going away.

At the end of the day, I’m still left with several questions:

  1. What is the average weighted cost of a patient with chronic Hep C?  Discounted to today’s dollars?  Hard dollars and soft dollars?  How does that compare to the cost of a cure?
  2. What’s the expected window of opportunity for Gilead?  If they have to pay for the full cost of this drug in one year, that explains a lot.  If they’re going to have a corner on the market for 10-years, that’s a different perspective.  (Hard to know prospectively)
  3. For any condition, what’s the value of a cure?  How is that value determined?  (This is generally a new question for the industry.)

And, a few questions that won’t get answered soon, but that this issue highlights are:

  1. What is a reasonable ROI for pharma to keep investing in R&D?
  2. What can be done using technology to lower the costs of bringing a drug to market?
  3. For a life-saving treatment, are we ready to put a value on life and how will we do that?
  4. What percentage of R&D costs (and therefore relative costs per pill) should the US pay versus other countries?

Why Unhealthy People Want Outcomes Based Wellness Programs

On the surface, the “Holy Grail” of sophisticated wellness and incentives programs are based on outcomes.  This means that the individual gets rewarded for achieving a goal.  For example, you can structure your incentives different ways.  You could have a reward for enrollment (i.e., I register for a program).  You could have a reward for activity (i.e., I talk to a nurse or watch a video online).  You could have a reward for an outcome (i.e., I lose 10 pounds).  

But, those have different implications in terms of structure.  [Note: I’m not a lawyer or an accountant so don’t take this as legal advice.]  I think Andrea Davis at Employee Benefit News did a good job of touching on this in her article “No Good Deed“.  

I did have a chance to implement a large outcomes-based rewards program for 1/1/14 where we had to address a lot of these changes from the ACA.  One of the key terms that she hits on is this idea of “Reasonable Alternative Standards”.  This basically means that if you implement an outcomes based incentive program that people have to be able to get the same incentive without achieving the outcome.  This seems to defeat the purpose in my mind.  

I always used to say that it was like having a guard dog with no teeth.  We implemented a very interesting program with lots of expectations, but there was a huge gapping loop hole.  Everyone could apply for a Reasonable Alternative Standard and achieve the same payout without really doing much.  Of course, most people don’t realize this, but this is why I would argue that people that aren’t healthy or engaged with their health programs at work would rather have these outcomes based programs.  

Otis Brawley’s Book – How We Do Harm

Brawley book cover

Let me start by saying…DON’T read this book if you enjoy having your physician up on a pedestal.  It will change your perceptions and skepticism of the system.

DO read this book if you’re frustrated by our US health care system and wonder why we spend so much money without necessarily seeing differences in mortality and outcomes compared to other developed countries.

“Proponents of science as a foundation for health care have not come together to form a grassroots movement, and until this happens, all of us will have to live with a system built on pseudoscience, greed, myths, lies, fraud, and looking the other way.  Patients need to learn that more care is not better care, that doctors are not necessarily right, and that some doctors are not even truthful.”

(Quote from the book pg. 27)

Let me start with an abbreviated bio on Dr. Otis Brawley from the American Cancer Society’s website:

Otis W. Brawley, M.D., F.A.C.P., chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, is responsible for promoting the goals of cancer prevention, early detection, and quality treatment through cancer research and education.

Dr. Brawley currently serves as professor of hematology, oncology, medicine and epidemiology at Emory University. From April of 2001 to November of 2007, he was medical director of the Georgia Cancer Center for Excellence at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, and deputy director for cancer control at Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University. He has also previously served as a member of the Society’s Prostate Cancer Committee, co-chaired the U.S. Surgeon General’s Task Force on Cancer Health Disparities, and filled a variety of capacities at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), most recently serving as assistant director.

Dr. Brawley is a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women. He was formerly a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee. He served as a member of the Food and Drug Administration Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee and chaired the National Institute of Health Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Sickle Cell Disease.

Dr. Brawley is a graduate of University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine. He completed his internship at University Hospitals of Cleveland, Case-Western Reserve University, his residency at University Hospital of Cleveland, and his fellowship at the National Cancer Institute.

I would put this book on my must read list for anyone working in healthcare.  I have two other books there:

Here are some things I highlighted as I read the book:

  • People diagnosed with cancer who had no insurance or were insured through Medicaid were 1.6x more likely to die within 5 years than those with private insurance.
  • “No incident in American medicine should be dismissed as an aberration.  Failure is the system.”
  • “Our medical system fails to provide care when care is needed and fails to stop expensive, often unnecessary, and frequently harmful interventions even in situations when science proves these interventions are wrongheaded.”
  • He introduces the concept of the “wallet biopsy” as a term to describe the difference in care we get once it’s determined what type of insurance we have.
  • While he points out and is clearly an advocate for health discrepancies and the issues of the un- and under-insured, he also points out that “wealth in America is no protection from getting lousy care”.
  • He hits on a point that I agree with in medicine and everywhere else which is teaching people to say “I don’t know”.  He later says “If you truly respect the patients you treat, you will not obscure the line where your knowledge stops and your opinion begins.”
  • He makes a key comment “Can the health-care system make itself trustworthy, become accessible and driven by science?”  (This reminds me of another book on trust in the healthcare system.)
  • “In most cancers, the quality of the surgery is the most important factor in the ultimate outcome.”
  • He talks a lot about the motivation of physicians in determining treatment and how that can be misguided over time.  While some of this can be explained away with Defensive Medicine, he points out that many other times this is simply the business of healthcare with people making money off these treatments.  Or, as he also points out, sometimes it’s simply unwillingness to challenge the status quo of over-treating the patient.  [This is something that I’ve heard other oncologists who provide second opinions point out.]
  • I learned about “gomers” which stands for get out of my emergency room which are patients who come to the emergency room just to interact with someone without any real symptoms.  He also introduces several other terms apparently all derived from a book The House of God about an intership at Beth Israel Medical Center in the 70s.
  • He brings up an important issue that us as Americans and many physicians believe to be true which is that “death is a failure of medicine”.  I’ve talked with several physicians about this.  I believe it’s one of the things that contributes to the enormous amount of money we spend on people in their last 90-days of life.
  • He gives a great (but sad) story of the “moral hazard” scenario of a family trying to care for their parent in the last days of their life and all the “senseless acts of medical torture” that they put him through.  This is one of his classic examples of where the physician knows better but is actually instructed to do harm.
  • He talks about one of the physicians he was assigned to work with during a rotation.  I thought this summary of his rules was great:

“You don’t deviate from the science.  You don’t make it up as you are going along.  You have to have a reason to give the drugs you are giving.  You have to be able to quote literature that supports what you are doing.  You have to tell patients the truth.”

  • At one point, he says that he confirms a truth he learned as a kid which is scary – “Doctors try out things just to see whether they will work.”
  • He gives a brief nod to companies using business rules to safeguard patients through technology that requires physicians to document what they are doing and comparing those to guidelines.
  • He spends a lot of time on prevention and survivorship in terms of how people justify some of those numbers.  It’s worthy of an entire post, but the key point is that early diagnosis by itself simply increases the years of survivorship.  It doesn’t actually mean we did anything better.  He also points out that due to all the treatments we give patients some of them die of other issues rather than cancer that “improves” the cancer death statistics.
  • And, for all of my pharmacy friends, he doesn’t miss the opportunity to tell the Nexium story or to talk about Vioxx and what happened in both of those cases.
  • His stories are amazingly similar to some of the physicians that I worked with for the past two years.  He talks about the overuse of radiologic imaging.  He talks about the da Vinci robot.
  • He gives some unique insights into the politics of support groups and government funding which I’d never understood before.
  • A great quote he uses from Willet Whitmore when talking about PSA testing and prostate cancer was:

“When cure is possible, is it necessary, and when cure is necessary, is it possible?”

  • I also liked a quote he gave from another urologist which said:

“There is the kind of prostate cancer that can be cured, but does not need to be cured; there is the kind of prostate cancer that needs to be cured and cannot be.  We all hope there is a kind of prostate cancer that needs to be cured and can be cured.”

  • This leads up to his point that research shows that 1.3M American men were needlessly treated for localized prostate cancer from 1986-2005.  Wow!
  • He was very positive on the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) which I was glad to hear since that’s the group that several of my physician friends have used before for setting guidelines.

Hopefully, you get the point.  It’s a quick read with a good mix of studies, patient stories, and the history of cancer with a focus on both historical and current issues that face us in this time of transformation in health care.

Here’s a few more articles about Dr. Brawley and his book:

 

As a random point of interest, Dr. Brawley uses several references to teachers and his Jesuit education at The University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy in Detroit which is where I also went to school and had some of the same teachers.  Our school was featured a few years ago as the last Catholic college prep school still in the city.

Prime Therapeutics Drug Trend Report 2014 Report

The Prime Therapeutics Drug Trend Report was released yesterday.  Interestingly, they start out the report by making the point that what really should matter is net ingredient cost not trend.  I’ve made the point before that trend isn’t a great number to focus on for many reasons.  And, if you’re comparing trend numbers (which we all do), then you need to understand different methodologies.  I think Adam Fein does a good job of summarizing that in his post.  (BTW – This is a tough discussion to have especially when you’re getting spreadsheeted by consultants as part of an RFP.)

As comparisons, you can see my reviews of the other drug trend reports here:

Their report was short and to the point.  Here’s some of the key data points:

  • 25M members
  • 80.6% generic fill rate
  • 12.7 Rxs PMPY
  • Overall drug trend = 3.3%
  • Specialty drug trend = 19.5%
  • Net ingredient cost trend = 2.2%

Prime Trend Drivers DTR 2013

 

  • The net ingredient cost per Rx = $58.99 (this is net of rebates and takes into account acquisition costs and network discounts)
    • They state that this beats the competition by $6.00 per Rx

Prime Net Ing Cost DTR 2013

 

Of course, anything anyone really cares about these days is specialty.  Specialty represents only 0.4% of the scripts they fill but 20.5% of the spend for a commercial account.  (They point out that this is much less as a percentage of scripts than other PBMs which have closer to 1% of their scripts classified as specialty…which could influence trend numbers.)  The chart below shows how some of the things we all did around traditional drugs apply to specialty drugs.

Prime Trad vs Specialty Rx DTR 2013

 

And, they make a few predictions going forward:

Prime Forecast DTR 2013

 

Mail Order Prescriptions Dropped 9.2% – WOW!

For some people running mail order pharmacies, this analysis is no big surprise.  They’re running off to their boss to show them that it’s not just their mail order facility, but it’s an industry issue.  To others, they’re left scratching their head trying to figure out why this is.  If mail order is where all the money is, what does this mean to them?  (The historical PBM model put most profit in generics filled at mail order.)

Per a statistic mentioned in Drug Benefit News from Pembroke Consulting (and discussed here by Adam Fein), mail order prescriptions from 2012 to 2013 (excluding Medicare) dropped 9.2% while retail prescriptions jumped 2.7%.  (This is not new news, but this is a big drop.)

I’ve talked about the issues and challenges of mail order many times:

  1. Retail satisfaction seems to beat mail order satisfaction based on different studies, but at the same time, there are studies showing the exact opposite.
  2. Presentation on the challenges with improving mail order rates
  3. Why clients don’t always save using mail order
  4. Why consumers choose mail

At the end of the day, I simplify the mail order issue down to four major challenges:

  1. Savings are disappearing.  Savings were primarily on brand drugs filled for 90-days.  When you fill a generic at mail and your getting 15-30 days supply for “free” (i.e., no copay), that’s great, but the copay savings is $4-10 every 90-days.  With generic utilization in or around 80%, this is a real issue.
  2. Transparency, coupons, and cash pay.  With apps like GoodRx, it’s easy for consumers to find the lowest cost option for them to fill a prescription.  That might be in a discount program.  It might be to pay cash.  It might be with a coupon.  And, it might be mail order.  They now can figure it out and optimize their spend easier.  Mail isn’t the only option.
  3. High expectations.  As a society, we continue to be more and more of a society that wants an instant response.  Sending prescriptions off to a black box with a multiple day turnaround and difficulty tracking the prescription doesn’t meet our modern expectations.  (A connected model of electronic prescribing may one day change this.)
  4. Cash flow.  As I always point out to people, we (those working in the industry) don’t represent the average American.  While it seems so logical to pay for a 90-day script in order to save money, that means you have to have the cash to pay for 3 months upfront.  Not everyone can do that especially when they have multiple prescriptions…And, no mail order pharmacy that I know of wants to be in the credit business.

Will mail order disappear?  Of course not, but PBMs need to continue to either find ways to improve the consumer experience and make it better or they need to recognize the issues that exist and continue to diversify.  And, with more 90-day prescriptions at retail for the same copay (i.e., CVS Caremark), this will continue to shift expectations.

Chinese Herbal-Therapy Ward At Cleveland Clinic

I think this is really interesting.  Cleveland Clinic has opened a Chinese herbal-therapy ward.  In the US, we’re very much a medicated society.  There’s a pill for almost every ailment you have and some you didn’t even know you had.  Even admitting that Western medicine might not have all the answers is a big step forward especially for such as prestigious hospital such as Cleveland Clinic.

So, what are they doing?  According to what I’ve read, they see patients with chronic pain, fatigue, poor digestion, infertility, and sleep disorders.  The clinic is run by a certified herbalist under the supervision of several classically trained physicians.  Access to the clinic is only on a referral basis, and according to Ohio law, the physician has to continue to oversee the patient’s treatment for a year after their referral.

The clinic is a single room with bright pillows, a tapestry, candles, and a cot.

Compared to China, the herbal formulas here are all encapsulated versus sent home with them to brew.

Of course, one of the worries is drug-herb interactions which requires them to coordinate care using an EMR and have people that have the right training and work with a clinic that can provide them with the right herbs and still meet their safety standards.

A consultation costs $100 which is typically not covered by insurance.  Additionally, follow-ups are $60 and a one-month supply of herbs will cost $100 (on average).

Here’s more on their clinic:

12 Innovation Lessons from 2014 (Fast Company)

Back in March 2014 (yes I’m behind), Fast Company put out a report on the World’s Most Innovative Companies.  I thought the list of 12 trends or lessons from their research was worth sharing.

  1. Exceptional is the Expected…Google is the case study here, but they make a point that for most companies, the best businesses focus on less not more.
  2. Innovation is Episodic…Innovation ebbs and flows so people don’t stay on the list every year.  This is also known as regression to the mean or the Sports Illustrated curse (of being on the cover).
  3. Making Money Matters…This is very true for mHealth.  I’ve seen so many really cool ideas, but if they’re not self-sustaining, that’s a problem.
  4. Sustainability Has Found A New Gear…”Green” is no longer a gimmick.  Companies are innovating and using alternative fuels and recycling as part of that.
  5. Unlocking Global Talent Unlocks Possibility…I can’t believe companies still don’t get this.  To innovate, you need diversity and a culture which allows those different opinions and perspectives to hash it solutions.  (Just look at the graphic at the bottom of this post for Silicon Valley which makes that point.)
  6. Passion is Underrated…While crowdsourcing sounds like old news to many industries.  I think there’s still a huge patient empowerment push that will happen in healthcare.  (Just look at this article in the WSJ.)
  7. Conflict Isn’t Required…This is the perfect Blue Ocean example.  You don’t always have to try to change the establishment but sometimes you have to figure out a whole new way.
  8. Happy Customers Make You Happy…Not much to say here.  Healthcare is about to learn this lesson with exchanges, but we have a long way to go.
  9. Software Beats Hardware…YES!  A great computer with a horrible data entry process which messes up the physician workflow and consumer experience is bad.  We need outside-in design to develop user-friendly software that takes into account workflow and regulation but improves the overall experience and outcomes.
  10. “Made In China” Is A Compliment…I’d expand this point to say that while we’ve outsourced for years for cost that’s building up knowledge and a middle class abroad.  As their expectations and experience rise, we’re going to see more innovation and quality from abroad.
  11. The Biggest Winner In The App Economy Remains Apple…And, now, Apple is taking it’s “moral obligation” and bringing it to healthcare.
  12. Dreaming Big Isn’t Folly; It’s Required…Eliminating cancer.  Changing payment paradigms in healthcare.  Getting patients to take action.  Changing food at schools.  We have to have some BHAGs in healthcare and make them happen.  (Perhaps some of the HealthPeople 2020 initiatives will get us thinking.)

Silicon Valley Workers

Above: Tech Immigrants: A Map of Silicon Valley’s Imported Talent (from VentureBeat article)

 

Curing Camden: Book Review

Curing Camden is a quick read on how different groups collaborated to change the healthcare cost curve in Camden, NJ.  Here’s the official language from the Amazon site, but after reading it, I thought I’d highlight a few things that caught my attention.

As the federal health reform debate played out in the national media spotlight, author Christina Hernandez Sherwood was reporting on the American medical system from the street level. From 2010 to 2012, she wrote a half-dozen stories for thePhiladelphia Inquirer that focused on an innovative healthcare nonprofit: the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers. These stories centered on the nonprofit’s role in combating falls, violence, diabetes, and other issues in Camden, New Jersey, a city known nationally as one of the country’s poorest and most violent, but that is now making a name for itself as an innovation leader in the public health sector.

In Curing Camden, all of Sherwood’s articles have been collected into a single book, including the unpublished final installment profiling the nonprofit’s founder. This book takes readers from the living rooms of Camden residents to the halls of the New Jersey State House in Trenton and beyond. Sherwood highlights how Camden could be the first US city to bend the cost curve by lowering healthcare costs while improving care. The ideas revealed in this book could be translated into practice across the country, and Camden could become a national model of 21st century medicine and public health.

The book goes through several core chapters.  The first one is on creating a citywide health record by working with the 3 primary health systems in the city.  The core part of the success here is that they used the framework of opt-out not opt-in which would drive more participation at the consumer level.  This behavioral economics framework called “active choice” has been used by several companies that I’ve worked with in the healthcare space to shift behavior patterns.  This obviously has the opportunity to reduce duplicate testing and improve care coordination.

The second chapter is about create an ACO for Camden with a 3-year Medicare demonstration project.  It’s an interesting discussion about how Dr. Jeffrey Brenner began using data to learn things about the Camden population.  For example he found out that most of the population will vista a hospital at least once in a 2-year period (which is 2x the national rate).  He also found that most of the top reasons for going to the emergency room were all primary care issues.  He makes a great point in the book that while people think that complicated patients simply like going to emergency rooms the reality is that they don’t have better choices.

The third chapter was about protecting against the risk of falling.  From 2002-2009, Camden residents made more than 17,000 trips to the hospital (the number one cause of hospital visits in Camden).  This isn’t a localized issue either.  Falls affect 1 in 3 seniors every year and drive $19B in costs according to the CDC.  In the book, they make an interesting point about the “vicious cycle” of falling which leads to less activity which leads to weaker patients increasing the likelihood of another fall.

The fourth and fifth chapters are about diabetes.  In Camden, almost 13% of adults have diabetes.  These patients can be high utilizers which is something they talk about along with their focus on the 13% of patients that drive more than 80% of the costs in Camden with one patient having over $5M in charges over 5 years.  Of course, people in dangerous communities are at higher risk of obesity due to lack of access to food and safe places to exercise which contributes to the diabetes issues.

The sixth chapter is about violence and helping victims.  Camden’s 77,000 residents experience more than 13 aggravated assaults per 1,000 residents (which is 5x the national rate).  This lead to 9,361 trips to the hospital from 2002-2009.

It’s an interesting read.  They had a lot of grant money, but at the end of the day, it was about several things:

  • Coordination and collaboration across the different systems
  • Localized care – being in the apartment building with a clinic or going into people’s homes
  • Using data to target the areas where they could make a difference
  • Caring to make a change

$83,000 In Savings On 3 Procedures – The Driver Of Transparency & Reference-Based Pricing

At the front of the HealthLeaders Magazine, they have a FactFile every month with data from Truven Health.  The one from March 2014 focused on price variation and transparency.  I thought I’d share a few of the charts.

This first chart shows their projections about the impact of a price transparency tool on cost savings over three years.  (BTW – If you’re looking for information on price transparency tools, I would go to Jane Sarasohn-Kahn‘s blog HealthPopuli and look at her posts on transparency – Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V).  Their projection was $6,786,000 in year 3 for an employer with 20,000 employees (or about 46,000 total covered lives if you assume a ratio of 2.3).

Image

 

 

 

The other topic in the FactFile is about price variation and potential savings.  They looked at three procedures and the variation in pricing for them.  They then estimated the savings from those three procedures for an Chicago based employers.

As you can see, the variation is dramatic.  What this will eventually lead to is called “reference-based pricing” where payers will agree to pay a fixed amount (or reference price) for a procedure and consumers will have to use transparency tools to figure out which providers will meet that price or pay out of pocket to go elsewhere.  The hope is that this will drive down prices, make consumers aware of differences, and finally help people understand that price and quality are NOT correlated in healthcare.

Here’s a few articles to read on price transparency:

Image

Image

Should Providers Have Private Conversations With Your 12-Year Old?

There was an interesting story which came out of Michigan this past week from Christy Duffy about how her physician’s office was requiring all minors between the age of 12-17 to have a 5 minute private conversation with them (according to the law).  Of course, it appears that they made a mistake per her later post, but I think it serves to make several interesting points.

1. Don’t always assume that someone’s interpretation of the law is right if it doesn’t make sense.  Sometimes, you have to apply common sense and push back or ask questions.

2. There is a gray area between protecting the rights of our kids and protecting our rights.  While the intent of allowing our kids to have honest and open conversations is appropriate, there needs to be some involvement of the parents.

It’s an interesting topic for discussion.  Should our teenagers have access to providers on their own?  Yes.  If a teenager has a health issue, I think we’d all prefer that they talk to a professional rather than Dr. Google or their friends to find the answer.

Should a provider be able to force a private conversation with a minor?  Yes…if they have a legitimate concern about abuse, but I don’t see any other reason.

Should a teenager who’s covered by my insurance and lives in my house be able to block me from having access to their medical records?  Yes.  This is the law, but should providers be having private conversations to offer them this option?  I don’t think so.  I would like them to have those discussions with me and my child to say that here are their options.

Should a teenager have a private conversation with their provider about STDs, HIV, and birth control?  Yes, BUT I’d like to have the conversation at the right age with me in the room initially and then offer the private option.  I don’t think forcing that conversation on a 12-year old would make sense in a private setting.

Ultimately, this comes down to the issue of access to the medical records online.  What I heard was that this would also require the provider to get a cell phone and e-mail address for my kids.  Obviously, if they’re doing something confidentially with the doctor, that’s one thing, but as a matter of record, I disagree.  (I don’t even give out my kid’s Social Security numbers.)  I don’t want my kids to start getting e-mails, phone calls, and letters sent directly to them as early as 12-years old.  And, yes…I do try to shelter them a little.  We talk about all the issues, but in a way that my wife and I want them to learn, not according to some formula driven approach that’s mandated.  But, ultimately, I don’t think a 12-year old is mature enough to make all their own health decisions or to feel like they should.

Obviously, some part of this falls on the parent regardless to create an environment of open dialogue with their kids.  The kids have to feel comfortable talking with their parents which is important for health and many other challenges that our kids have to deal with.  And, unfortunately there’s always bad people in any profession so while sexual abuse by a physician or nurse is rare it’s not unheard of.  Ideally, I think you should have the choice of when to encourage a private conversation and never have it mandated (unless of course the provider suspects abuse).  Unfortunately, with a report of abuse being made every 10 seconds, we have a huge problem in our country.

Top 25 Wikipedia Health Topics

The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics published a report in January called “Engaging Patients Through Social Media“.

One of the things it highlighted is the incredible use of Wikipedia for healthcare information.  People are typically going to Google and looking for a disease.  Based on Wikipedia’s page rankings, this often leads them there.

Image

 

Now, what makes this more interesting is the article in the BBC News which says that 90% of wikipedia articles on health contain errors.

Of course, the trick in reading the article closely is that it says they found that “90% of the entries made statements that contradicted latest medical research”.  What’s the difference?  Well, we know that it takes years for evidence-based medicine to become adopted within healthcare.  So, how long does it take the latest medical research to get updated on all the sites?  What I would love to see is a comparison of Wikipedia to WebMD, Ebix, and Healthwise.  That would be telling.

Great #BigData JAMA Image Missing Some Data Sources

JAMA image data

When I saw this article and image in JAMA, I was really excited.  It’s a good collection of structured and unstructured data sources.  It reminded me of Dr. Harry Greenspun’s tweet from earlier today which points out why this new thinking is important.

 

But, it also made me think about this image and what was missing.  The chart shows all the obvious data sources:

  • Pharmacy
  • Medical
  • Lab
  • Demographic
  • EMR / PHR

It even points out some of the newer sources of data:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Online communities
  • Genetics

But, I think they missed several that I think are important and relevant:

  1. Structured assessments like the PHQ-9 for depression screening or the Patient Activation Measure.
  2. Communications data like:
    • How often do they call the call center?
    • What types of questions do they have?
    • Do they respond to calls, e-mails, SMS, letters, etc?
    • Have they identified any barriers to adherence or other actions (e.g., vaccines)?  Is that stored at the pharmacy, call center, MD notes?
  3. Browser / Internet data:
    • This could be mobile data from my phone.
    • What searches I’ve done to find health information.  What have I read?  Was it a reliable source?
  4. Device data (e.g., FitBit):
    • What’s my sleep pattern?
    • What am I eating?
    • How many steps do I walk a day?
  5. Income information or even credit score type data

These things seem more relevant to me than fitness club memberships (which doesn’t actually mean you go to the fitness club) or ancestry.com data which isn’t very personalized (to the best of my knowledge).

In some cases, just simply understanding how consumers are using the healthcare system might be revealing and provide a perspective on their health literacy.

  • Do they call the Nurseline?
  • Do they go to the ER?
  • Do they have a PCP?
  • Do they use the EAP?

We’d like to think this was all coordinated (and sometimes scared into believing that it is), but the reality is that these data silos exist with limited ability to track a patient longitudinally and be sure that the patient is the same across data sources without a common, unique identifier.

International Differences In Wellness Programs

I was looking for a statistic today on wellness programs when I came across this 2010 survey on global wellness from Buck Consultants.  I found the geographic differences really interesting, and I thought I’d share a few of the charts here.

Intl Drivers of Wellness strategy Buck

Top wellness programs by region buck

Wellness Program Objectives - Buck

If you want to see their 2012 report on what’s next for wellness, you can go here.

Internet Turns 25 – Looking Back And Forward

happy birthday

Wow!  The Internet turned 25.  Do you remember when you started using computers and technology?  I can.

I think my first computer was the Commodore 64 which we plugged into our home TV for a monitor and used a tape recorder to store files and access programs.

commodore 64

I can remember when we got 3 Macintosh computers to use at school.

first Mac

I can remember when we got our IBM PC Jr.

IBM PC Jr

After that, computers started being a little more common where we had them in high school for typing, but at the same time, people were using electric typewriters more than computers.  (I can’t believe that they still sell electric typewriters – see Wal-Mart ad.)

I can then remember being at the University of Michigan with massive computer labs of Apple computers.  At that time, I still remember using the Gopher technology that had been developed out of the University of Minnesota and pre-dated today’s Internet and HTML.

gopher

This eventually led to all the excitement about physical companies having websites and being able to do amazing things like order pizza online…the rise of e-commerce and eventually the dotcom bubble.

I still smile when I think that one of my first assignments in healthcare was to convince managed care companies to build a website.  I flew all around the country as a consultant with Ernst & Young LLP meeting with teams to convince them of what the Internet could do, why they should build a website, what functionality to put on it, and how to drive members to the website.

And, now, our kids grow up with this as normal.  Everything can be “googled”.  There is no card catalog to look things up or waiting to figure out why someone is late.  Things are instantly available.  (If you’ve never seen the list of what graduates will never remember, here’s a link to their 2017 graduate list.  Always interesting.)

So, I’ll wrap this up with a look at the future from a new report by PEW.  Here’s 15 predictions from their report:

1) Information sharing over the Internet will be so effortlessly interwoven into daily life that it will become invisible, flowing like electricity, often through machine intermediaries.

2) The spread of the Internet will enhance global connectivity that fosters more planetary relationships and less ignorance.

3) The Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and big data will make people more aware of their world and their own behavior.

4) Augmented reality and wearable devices will be implemented to monitor and give quick feedback on daily life, especially tied to personal health.

5) Political awareness and action will be facilitated and more peaceful change and public uprisings like the Arab Spring will emerge.

6) The spread of the ‘Ubernet’ will diminish the meaning of borders, and new ‘nations’ of those with shared interests may emerge and exist beyond the capacity of current nation-states to control.

7) The Internet will become ‘the Internets’ as access, systems, and principles are renegotiated

8) An Internet-enabled revolution in education will spread more opportunities, with less money spent on real estate and teachers.

9) Dangerous divides between haves and have-nots may expand, resulting in resentment and possible violence.

10) Abuses and abusers will ‘evolve and scale.’ Human nature isn’t changing; there’s laziness, bullying, stalking, stupidity, pornography, dirty tricks, crime, and those who practice them have new capacity to make life miserable for others.

11) Pressured by these changes, governments and corporations will try to assert power — and at times succeed — as they invoke security and cultural norms.

12) People will continue — sometimes grudgingly — to make tradeoffs favoring convenience and perceived immediate gains over privacy; and privacy will be something only the upscale will enjoy.

13) Humans and their current organizations may not respond quickly enough to challenges presented by complex networks.

14) Most people are not yet noticing the profound changes today’s communications networks are already bringing about; these networks will be even more disruptive in the future.

15) Foresight and accurate predictions can make a difference; ‘The best way to predict the future is to invent it.’

 

Fail Fast To Succeed Sooner – The Big Company Challenge

I was reading an article this morning about asking the question “are you afraid to fail?”  It’s an article about innovation which reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from David Kelley at IDEO.

Fail Faster

It also reminded me of another article from 2006 in Business Week about How Failure Breeds Success which was when I left Express Scripts to pursue several entrepreneurial opportunities.

Stefan H. Thomke, a professor at Harvard Business School and author of Experimentation Matters, says that when he talks to business groups, “I try to be provocative and say: ‘Failure is not a bad thing.’ I always have lots of people staring at me, [thinking] ‘Have you lost your mind?’ That’s O.K. It gets their attention. [Failure] is so important to the experimental process.”

BW Failure Cover

It also got me thinking about success rates in companies.  We all hear so much about the success of entrepreneurs and these 20 year old billionaires.  Is that reality?  Here’s a few stats from an article in the WSJ and a study by the Census Bureau.

  • 80% of companies make it to year one
  • 60% of companies make it to year three
  • 50% of companies make it to year five
  • 35% of companies make it to year ten

Sounds pretty depressing.  What about the fact that according to the WSJ article, only 5% of them achieve the projected ROI and 30-40% of them liquidate all their assets returning nothing.

“People are embarrassed to talk about their failures, but the truth is that if you don’t have a lot of failures, then you’re just not doing it right, because that means that you’re not investing in risky ventures.  I believe failure is an option for entrepreneurs and if you don’t believe that, then you can bang your head against the wall trying to make it work.” (David Cowan – Bessemer Venture Partners in WSJ article)

Just watch the show Shark Tank sometime.  There are amazing entrepreneurs with interesting ideas who have sacrificed so much to try to make it work.  I always try to tell people that it’s not just about passion and hard work otherwise people would succeed all the time.  Some things you do learn from Shark Tank along with the book The Art of the Start is how to frame and present your ideas.

So, why is this so important?  We’re on the the verge of huge transformation in the healthcare industry.  I think Oliver Wyman did a good job of discussing this in a whitepaper last year.  You can read article after article about mHealth, telemedicine, and remote monitoring.  (I’ll point you to Rock Health or The Center For Connected Health as two starting points.)

Of course innovation has been the buzz for several years now.  I think Jim Collins does a good job of teeing up this issue in discussing churn in the Fortune 500 list.  With the technology and VC crowd, the more recent term for business model innovation is “pivot“.  I think you’ve seen a lot more Chief Innovation Officers and innovation labs in healthcare companies these days.

I came across an interesting blend of technology consulting, investing, and innovation last night in the BCG Digital Ventures group.  In watching part of a YouTube video by their CEO, I think he does a great job summarizing how consulting maps to the investment paradigm.

  • Innovation is like seed capital
  • Product development is like venture capital
  • Commercialization is like growth capital

Interestingly, I probably get 1-2 calls a week from people in big companies that really want to get out of the big company and come work in the exciting start-up space.  I always tell them that the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence so be careful.  It can be great, but it can be really tough.  It’s just a different type of risk and not everyone can take the emotional and potentially financial risk.  On the flipside, I also get people that look at the different entrepreneurial things I’ve done and say “why?”  They want to know why I didn’t just stay in a F500 company.  Sometimes, I think of this 8 years as a boomerang where I’ll end up back in a F500 company, but I’ll be a much more valuable product development, strategy, and innovation executive.  [This idea of boomeranging was one that Gensler introduced me to years ago in architecture where they encouraged people to work at different companies and come back if relevant.]

Depending on the day, I also think about what I’ve learned since I’ve never had one of those huge exits that everyone talks about.  I’m not cashing in on all my options to make money.  I’ve summarized many of those learnings on the blog, but here’s a few that I’ll call out.

  1. Firepond was my first venture into this space.  It was a 20-year company that General Atlantic had invested in to turn around as a product configurator in the CRM space.
    • Learned about CRM (customer relationship management) technology.
    • Learned about how to develop, structure, and manage alliances.
    • Learned the importance and how to structure offshore deals.
    • Learned about global sales and embedding technology into different solutions.
    • Learned about evaluating and buying companies.
  2. CentralScript was my second venture I started it from an idea I tried to sell at Express Scripts (and later was suggested to them by Clayton Christensen).
    • Learned about writing a business plan and financial modeling and projections.
    • Learned about the legal structure of businesses.
    • Learned about raising money and how to work with and evaluate angels and VCs.
    • Learned about building a team and structuring contracts with them.
    • Learned about selling and evaluating partners.
  3. Talisen Technologies was my third venture which was another turnaround where I worked with a friend of mine who had raise some private equity to do a technology services consulting roll-up.
    • Learned about Business Process Management technology.
    • Learned about how to build support companies around a technology platform.  (The opposite of Firepond where I was the technology company.)
    • Learned about the difficulties of transforming an existing company and evaluating new companies.
    • Learned about how to use blogging and create exposure using social media.
  4. Silverlink was my fourth venture (and most successful experience) and first real start-up where it wasn’t trying to turnaround an existing asset but building off what the founders had built.
    • Learned about how to present to and work with the Board of Directors.
    • Learned about managing a sales force.
    • Learned about product development, training, documentation, and product lifecycle.
    • Learned about sales and marketing and being responsible for growth and a team.
    • Learned about account management.
    • Learned the value of using thought leadership, social media, and the press to drive awareness and pipeline.
    • Learned how to develop competitive analysis and differentiation.
    • Leraned about pricing and analytics.
  5. inVentiv Medical Management is my current venture which is part of a broader entity, but it’s still the same concept which is a 20-year old company that we’re transforming into a new platform and new business model.
    • Still in-progress so more to come…

So, I wrote all this to make the point that innovation is difficult.  You have to take some risks.  Like the article said upfront, you have to believe you can fail.  You have to have a plan for what to do if you do fail.  Big companies should provide a safety net to people to fail fast.  I think I’ve learned a ton that I wouldn’t have learned staying in the big company.  At the right time, that will be a huge asset as I look to help drive the transformation and pivoting of a larger entity!

Healthcare Gamification

If you believe all the hype about digital health, you might think gamification was a natural solution.  Of course, if you’ve never heard of gamification, let me provide a basic definition from Wikipedia.

Gamification is the use of game thinking and game mechanics in non-game contexts to engage users in solving problems.

Here’s several articles for more information:

  1. Four Factors Driving Gamification in Healthcare
  2. From FitBit to Fitocracy
  3. The Wellness Game
  4. Gamification: Drugmakers And Health Campaigners Turn To Games To Promote Health

I think this quote from the Perficient white paper on this topic is a good one.

Gabe Zichermann, the author of Game-Based Marketing, speaks of balancing the fun and frivolity of gamification with the task of making life easier for cancer patients. He says, “I don’t presume to think that we can make having cancer into a purely fun experience. But, we have data to show that when we give cancer patients gamified experiences to help them manage their drug
prescriptions and manage chemotherapy, they improve their emotional state and also their adherence to their protocol.”

You can also look at a post by Jane Sarasohn-Kahn (one of my favorite bloggers) on this topic where she highlights several trends from a recent paper on gamification in healthcare.

Now, why should you care?

  1. Gamification should improve engagement which is critical to changing behavior.
  2. Gamification creates opportunities to make healthcare fun which can be difficult.
  3. People are different and respond to different “incentives”.  Competition and leader boards are concepts that excite lots of people to take action.

The forecasts for the gamification market are huge.  They show a nice hockey stick which gets every investor excited.

1

Of course, the important question is who uses games.  Is it just teenage boys?  It’s not.  Here’s a good report which shows you breakdown by age, gender, and many other stats.

Gaming

Another quick article about gamification is from TEDMED.  The video is below, but it reminds me of some of my personal perspectives.  The sites also lists out several vendors and solutions in the obesity gamification space.

While one “easy” opportunity in my mind is to use gamification to address the rising number of kids with chronic diseases and to help address childhood obesity, there are many other opportunities like adherence.  A few examples of games out there include:

Companies like Ayogo, Mango Health, and Akili are ones that I’ve heard about, but I know there are a lot more out there.

One example I think of from watching my kids play games is from Webkinz which was a blend of real stuffed animals with online digital personas.  The animals could get sick if you didn’t nurture them and visit them.  It made me think of how an avatar could get fatter or slower based on their pedometer or eating habits.

A Few Corporate Wellness Tips

While Al Lewis has become the industry antagonist (in a good way), he makes a lot of great points that anyone working in the industry should understand and consider.

If you haven’t read some of Al’s articles, let me point you to a few:

His writing reminds me of some of the things my former boss pointed out several years ago about the disease management industry.

In one of his posts, he makes several points that I wanted to discuss here:

  1. You should use a source like the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) as the evidence-based reference for appropriate screenings – frequency, age, gender.  Of course, I agree with this.  We need some common source that we all can use that’s based on best practices and evidence.
  2. He argues that you should stop weighing people.  I’d argue that knowing your numbers is important.  As a country and a world, we’re seeing massive growth rates in obesity which is linked to numerous diseases.  We need people to be more conscious of this risk factor especially in our sedentary work environments – see sitting disease infographic.
  3. His third point is about targeting and nudging the right population versus over-sampling everyone.  I couldn’t agree more.  This should be what the Big Data push in healthcare gets us.  How to build predictive algorithms to identify people with multiple risk factors.  How to identify people with gaps-in-care.  How to figure out what someone needs to take an action.  I always say there are 3 factors to consider:
    • Is there value in the intervention?
    • What channel / method is going to get the consumer’s attention?
    • What information is going to get the consumer to take an action?

To follow-up on my points above, here’s some information on obesity and it’s link to other diseases.

The CDC says that obesity is linked to:

  • Coronary heart disease, stroke, and high blood pressure.
  • Type 2 diabetes.
  • Cancers, such as endometrial, breast, and colon cancer.
  • High total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides.
  • Liver and gallbladder disease.
  • Sleep apnea and respiratory problems.
  • Degeneration of cartilage and underlying bone within a joint (osteoarthritis).
  • Reproductive health complications such as infertility.
  • Mental health conditions.

And, for a fun video by Mayo Clinic on Knowing Your Numbers watch this:

Who Is The NetFlix Of Healthcare HR?

I was sent this deck a few weeks ago.  It’s been out there for a few years.  It’s the HR / Human Capital strategy for Netflix.  Netflix has been known for things like no vacation policy (i.e., take what you need).  This gives much more insight.

It’s not really an industry that I’m focused on, but I’d love to find a healthcare company with this approach to human capital.  That would be a company worth following and working with.

Forbes “Most Promising” Companies – Healthcare

Whenever I see lists like the Forbes list of America’s Most Promising Companies, I like to look through the list and pull out the healthcare companies.  They say these are private companies that standout because of their growth and outstanding management.

#4 – Evolent

#24 – 24HR HomeCare

#28 – CareCloud

#39 – Intersect ENT

#41 – Therapearl

#95 – Boston Heart Diagnostics

If healthcare is 20% of the GDP and with all the mHealth and HIT spending, I was hoping to see a few more companies on this list.

The Boston Physician Dilemna

I often wonder why so many healthcare companies are in the Boston area.  These two set of statistics from the Merritt Hawkins study on physician appointment wait times paint an interesting picture.

First, you have the fact that Boston has the highest ratio of physicians per 100,000 people.  Almost double the US average.

Screen Shot 2014-02-01 at 6.51.20 AM

On the other hand, it takes you the longest time to get access to a physician.

Image

 

I’m a simple person.  This doesn’t seem to make sense.  I could say that lots of them are working in academia or in companies and not actually seeing patients.  I’m sure that explains some of it, but I can’t imagine all of it.

It’s also interesting that Boston also rises to the top of the list in terms of Medicare acceptance.

Medicare acceptance rates by city

8 Risks Drive 15 Conditions And 80% Of Healthcare Costs

This is one of my favorite images that I use all the time to talk about how our decisions drive our healthcare costs.  This is from the AON Hewitt 2012 Health Care Survey and based on the World Economic Forum’s data.

8 risks - 15 conditions - 80 costs - AON

New Harris Interactive Data Supports Focus On Hospitals And Retailers

As I’ve discussed before, trust is critical in engaging consumers.  The question always is “Who does the consumer trust in healthcare?”  We certainly know that individuals like physicians, nurses, and pharmacists are trusted, but they often aren’t the ones doing the big campaigns to engage consumers.  It’s the pharma manufacturers, the hospitals, the PBMs, the payers, the retail pharmacies, and other entities.  In my presentation at the CBI conference, I hypothesized that this is why retail pharmacy should (could) take a bigger role in the future.

The new survey from Harris Interactive reinforces that.  Of course, 42% of people don’t believe any companies, but with some healthcare companies being barely trusted more than tobacco companies, consumer engagement isn’t easy.

Harris Interactive - Trusted Industries 2013

The additional bad news from the survey is that people think more regulation is necessary in healthcare.

Harris Interactive - Regulated Industries 2013

 

Interview With IMS Health About AppScript – #mHealth13

“Today, there is growing recognition of mobile health’s potential to transform healthcare – to advance doctor/patient engagement and empower consumers to better monitor and manage their own health,” said Stefan Linn, senior vice president, Strategy & Global Pharma Solutions, IMS Health. “That potential can only be realized through a systematic evaluation of the clinical benefits of healthcare apps, clear professional guidelines around their use, and effective integration of apps with other aspects of patient care. With these game-changing solutions, IMS Health is establishing an intelligent, secure infrastructure for mobile health, backed by our market-leading real-world evidence capabilities and the most advanced technology platform in healthcare.”

Most of you that read the blog on a regular basis know that I was really intrigued by the idea of “prescribing information and technology” early on.  With 90,000 different health related applications, the question is which ones should you use and how should you find out about them.  Happtique started to get into this space earlier in the year, and I spoke with them at length about integrating this into a care management platform.

I was really surprised to learn that IMS Health which I think of as a healthcare data company was jumping into this space.

IMS Health is the world’s leading information, services and technology company dedicated to making healthcare perform better.

By applying cutting-edge analytics and proprietary application suites hosted on the IMS One intelligent cloud, the company connects more than 10 petabytes of complex healthcare data on diseases, treatments, costs and outcomes to enable our clients to run their operations more efficiently.

Drawing on information from 100,000 suppliers, and on insights from more than 40 billion healthcare transactions processed annually, IMS Health’s 9,000+ expert resources drive results for over 5,000 healthcare clients globally.

Customers include pharmaceutical, medical device and consumer health manufacturers and distributors, providers, payers, government agencies, policymakers, researchers and the financial community.

I talked with Matt Tindall who’s their Director of Consumer Solutions about this a few days ago (but was waiting for their press release to be out and their presentation at the mHealth Summit – which I am very disappointed to be missing for the second year in a row.)

I also read their press release about their new solutions.

IMS Health today announced the immediate availability of AppScriptTM, an mHealth app prescribing solution designed to help healthcare providers and health plans create proprietary formularies based on an objective assessment of healthcare app functionality and value. The company also announced the launch of AppNucleusTM, its customizable, cloud-based hosting platform that will enable developers to build secure, industry-compliant healthcare apps at very low cost. Both new products will leverage IMS Health’s comprehensive data on diseases, treatments, costs and outcomes.

The AppScript Software-as-a-Service solution classifies and evaluates more than 40,000 mobile healthcare apps currently available for download on iOS and Android platforms, categorized by stage of the patient journey. Each app is assessed using the company’s proprietary IMS Health AppScore, which ranks apps based on functionality, peer and patient reviews, certifications, and their potential to improve outcomes and lower the cost of care. As part of wellness, prevention and treatment regimens, physicians can organize these apps into formularies based on their specific patient population and practice preferences. In addition, AppScript enables them to securely prescribe, reconcile and track app use by patients from any mobile interface.

AppNucleus is the company’s innovative healthcare app development and hosting platform that makes it easier for app developers to offer HIPAA- and HITECH-compliant solutions. The platform, compatible with all mobile operating systems, uniquely integrates IMS Health information and analytics at every stage of app development to support design and performance evaluation decisions. AppNucleus features a suite of plug-and-play solutions, enabling patients and physicians to exchange health information on mobile devices via a secure, encrypted channel to protect patient information. It also offers app developers a highly economical way to build security into their apps and protect patient information.

Here’s my notes and key observations:

First off, I quickly learned that I missed a very interesting report that they put out in October.  This report titled “Patient Apps for Improved Healthcare: From Novelty to Mainstream” has lots of great information which I share below.  It also is essentially the business case for these new solutions.

In talking with Matt, he shared with me how IMS Health, a 60 year old company, is using their consumer solutions group to transform how people learn and manage their health.  He talked about how they want to make mobile safer, more effective, and easier.

I really wanted to understand how they determined where to look given all the apps out there.  A lot of it is in the report, but he shared how they looked at 40,000 apps and used over 25 different criteria (such as type of information, functionality, communication process used) and peer reviews to determine a shorter list to focus on.

We discussion how the short-term success of mobile is engagement, but the long-term success will have to be tied to clinical outcomes.

He walked me through the process for getting the app prescribed:

  • The physician would be using a white labeled platform (provided by their health plan, provider group, others).
  • They would select an app based on a curated formulary.
  • The patient would get a secure e-mail or a text message with a link to the app.
  • The patient would follow the link and enter a proprietary passcode.
  • This would take them into the app store.
  • They can then download the app.

This process will allow them to track “intent to download” and then whether they did download.  The key next step will be partnering with the apps and getting the patient consent to pull data back to know not only if it was downloaded but whether it was used and how often.  And, ultimately, this will have to be integrated with the provider platform.

We talked a little bit about why IMS and he talked about their knowledge of the prescriber and ability to recommend apps for their formulary based on their patterns of prescribing.

Ultimately, I think they may be in a good position to succeed here.  I think there are several key questions:

  • How are the apps evaluated?  Do clinicians evaluate the clinical algorithms?
  • How do you determine the financial viability of the apps?  Are they one-hit wonders or shiny objects or will they be around for years.
  • How do you modify the “formulary” based on user and prescriber feedback?
  • How do you integrate the tools into the physician’s workflow?
  • How comfortable will the physicians have to be with each app?  (Won’t the users have questions for them and will that be a barrier?)

From their report on healthcare apps:

  • Only about ½ of the 40,000 apps they looked at justified a deeper dive.

IMS Consumer App Functionality

  • They categorized the apps by:
    • Inform: Provide information in a variety of formats (text, photo, video)
    • Instruct: Provide instructions to the user
    • Record: Capture user entered data
    • Display: Graphically display user entered data/output user entered data
    • Guide: Provide guidance based on user entered information, and may further offer a diagnosis, or recommend a consultation with a physician/a course of treatment
    • Remind/Alert: Provide reminders to the user
    • Communicate: Provide communication with HCP/patients and/or provide links to social networks

They also looked at apps by therapy area and by which part of the patient journey they focus on.

IMS Apps By Patient Journey

“There’s a group [of patients] who each have several medical problems and often they have several specialists, all making recommendations. It’s often overwhelming for the patient and for the caregiver. They get overwhelmed by the number of pills and the number of recommendations that they have been given, so I feel that if everybody starts prescribing apps it could quickly lead to app overload”

Leslie Kernisan – Geriatrician and caregiver educator

IMS MD Hurdles To Apps IMS App Maturity Model

 

Are Sports Good For Kids?

This was an interesting question that I was thinking about this morning.

I could take this several directions:

  • I could look at the benefits of exercise from sports (assuming the kids actually got enough exercise in practice – see older blog post).
  • I could look at the benefits of working in a team which I see from team sports.
  • I could look at the recovery benefits of losing and coming back which is very important in business and life. (how do you handle adversity)
  • I could look at the dangers of sports.
  • I could look at concussions in football and the discussion of helmets for soccer.
  • I could look at the negative impacts of parents on their kids relative to sports.
    • Fighting at sport events.
    • Pushing their kids too far.  (below are some things I’ve heard and seen)
      • Just keep running even if you throw up.  You’ll be fine.
      • If you have to pee, just pee in your swim suit.  You can’t be distracted during the meet.
      • If you do that again, we’re going to get up at 5 in the morning and go to the gym and practice it 100x before school.
      • You need to work harder so you can be in the Olympics at 16.
      • This is our college plan.  They have to be the best at this sport.
      • I pulled them out of school so they could practice more.  (The kid was 7.)

But, I saw an article about the time that kids start school, and it got me thinking about sleep and sports and the impact on kids.

Let’s start with some established facts:

sleep guidelines

Now, let’s assume most grade schools start around 8:00.  (My kid’s school starts at 7:30.)  That means that they likely have to get up by 7:00 at the latest.  So, they should be in bed by 9:00 PM on average probably earlier for most kids and families where people are catching the bus or driving to school.

If their sports are starting practice or games after 6:00 PM, how likely is it that they’re home, calmed down, with their homework finished, and in bed by 9:00 PM?  Even if they are, how many parents are getting their kids to bed by 9:00?

“Sleep may be the most important, though overlooked, contributor to your children’s development and health. The reality is that children can survive without exercise and on little food (though I don’t recommend either), but all children need sleep. It’s often unnoticed because you don’t usually see your children sleeping and its benefits are not readily apparent (though its costs usually are).

The influence of sleep on children is profound. Quality sleep has been found to be associated with improved attention, reduced stress, greater emotional control, better mood, improved memory, greater ability to learn and return information, better grades, improved mental health, lower risk of obesity and other health problems, and longer life.” (From a good article on kid’s sleep in the Huffington Post)

So, just to be clear…I think kids should be in sports.  I just think we (as parents) need to be more concerned about making sure we don’t sacrifice our kid’s sleep on a regular basis for them to play sports and lead them into health issues and school issues.  The tradeoff isn’t worth it.  (IMHO)

Pharmacy Satisfaction – Retail Beats Mail

With the new JD Powers survey, the gap between retail pharmacy satisfaction and mail order has widened. The average mail order satisfaction score was 797 for mail versus 837 (out of 1,000) for retail.

I think one key comment from Scott Hawkins, director of the healthcare practice at JD powers was:

“One of the key things we’ve seen in the data is that if someone is feels compelled to use a mail-order [pharmacy] their satisfaction score is going to be lower than someone who chooses to use it on their own.” (From Nov 2013 Employee Benefits News article by Andrea Davis)

If I was still at a PBM, I’d push to see the results broken out both ways so I could compare apples to apples the then say the drag was from clients choosing mandatory mail.

The rankings for mail order were:

Kaiser – 868
Humana – 845
Walgreens Mail – 812
OptumRx – 798
Prime Therapeutics – 794
Express Scripts – 783
Aetna – 778
Cigna – 771
Caremark – 760

The two I find the most interesting are Prime Therapeutics and OptumRx as both of them have moved their mail order services in house in the past few years and seem to be doing well with it. Aetna has outsourced their solution to Caremark and Cigna just recently outsourced their mail order to Catamaran which wasn’t on the list (but may be in the survey).

If E-Prescribing Doesn’t Have All The Data…Is It Helpful?

This is an interesting dilemma.  At this point, I think everyone is pro e-prescribing even if it’s simply for the benefit of reducing errors.  But, I think the original intent of the solutions were to do a lot more than reduce errors.

The hope was to improve adherence (which I think may have been too lofty).  The idea was that e-prescribing would reduce the abandonment rate at the pharmacy.  I’m not sure picking up a prescription is the same as taking a prescription.  And, taking a prescription once isn’t the same as staying adherent over time.

Another hope was that the use of e-prescribing would drive formulary compliance and increase generic utilization.  The idea was that putting this information in the hands of the prescriber would allow them to make more real-time decisions that were aligned with the consumer’s interests (i.e., lower out-of-pocket spend).  The latest report doesn’t seem to support this at all.  It also echos my prior posts about whether e-prescribing was aligned with pharma at all.

Fewer than half (47.5%) of the 200 PCPs polled said they have access to formulary information when e-prescribing, and fewer than a third said they have access to prior authorization (31.0%) or co-pay (29.5%) information. Among physicians with formulary information access, that information was available 61.1% of the time and was said to be accurate 68.6% of the time.

Physicians with an EMR (54.1%) were more likely to have access to formulary information than physicians without an EMR (29.6%). And differences were seen depending on the EHR vendor: Allscripts physicians (32.2%) were less likely to have access to this information than “All Other” software suppliers (60.5%), Epic physicians (62.5%) and eClinicalWorks (68.8%). 

Another big effort that e-prescribing and integration with EMR was going to have was to push utilization management (UM) to the POP (point of prescribing) rather than having the pharmacy and the PBM dealing with it.  I never really thought this would work.  If the information isn’t there or they don’t trust the information, the prescriber isn’t going to want to deal with this.  It’s already work that they let their staff handle and isn’t something they want to deal with during the patient encounter.

While e-prescribing is definitely here to stay and becoming the norm, the question is whether it’s creating simply a typed “clean” Rx to transmit electronically or whether it’s actually an intelligent process which will enable better care.

Given multiple studies and surveys recently about transparency in healthcare billing and the general push with Health Reform to drive to outcomes, I’m not sure the “dumb” system process can be a sustainable value proposition.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,517 other followers

%d bloggers like this: