Archive | March, 2008

Convergence: MiCoach

As a runner, I found this interesting new product c/o The Hospital Impact blog.  The video is pretty engaging on the MiCoach.  It blends a GPS technology with an MP3 player with a personal coach with a phone and links it to a website for tracking.  If I wasn’t a runner, I would have some skepticism, but those are all relevant things.

When I run, I have a GPS on my wrist, my iPod, and often (for long distances) a phone in my pack.  I then download my running to my PC which has some great reporting tools but limited analysis tools.  The personal coach response will vary by person as different people respond to different “encouragement”.  I may have to put this on my wish list to try out at some point.

Now, of course it requires specific shoes, which I think is an issue for runners.  I have been using the same brand of shoes for 4 years.  And, I go out of my way to get them.  There is no store in St. Louis that sells them so I have to order them every 3 months or so.

I was also somewhat confused on the website about how to get the products.  There was no buy here function (unless I missed it).

But, I think the key here is the idea of device convergence and the blending of clothes with technology.  Just one sign of the many interesting things to come.

What Does Spitzer Teach Us About Sharing Information?

While staying away from some of the issues around Spitzer, there is one that I found very interesting.  How does someone spend $4,000 (or $80,000) total without their spouse knowing?  I guess maybe when you have too much money that can happen.  I talked with 10 of my friends about it and in general they typically had shared accounts where many of them had their wife helping or managing the bills.  (My wife manages everything for us…thank goodness.)

But, it brought a question to my mind which is how much information and when do people share with their spouses about their health conditions.

  • When you’re dating, should you disclose all your medical conditions?  What about your family history?
  • When you’re diagnosed, how quickly does the average spouse disclose that information to their family?  How does this vary by disease?
  • And, what happens in the future when you can get a genomics test to tell you what diseases you are genetically prone to get?  Should you disclose that to a future spouse and at what point?

They were showing 23andMe on the Today Show a few days ago where you could pay $1,000 to get a test done that showed you your likelihood of getting certain diseases.  It also showed you interesting things like where your ancestors were from and whether you tasted bitter things or sweet things.  It is worth going to their site and looking at, but it brings lots of interesting questions to the table.  Do you get your kids tested?  Once you have the information, can you influence the future or do you take a fatalistic view of having no control?

23andme.jpg

Guest: 5 Ways an iPhone Can Improve Doctor-Patient Relationships

I feel lucky to have people want to post on my blog. Susan Jacobs is a part-time teacher and regular reader. She is also a regular contributor for NOEDb, a site for learning about and selecting an online nursing degree program. Susan invites your comments and freelancing job inquiries at her email address susan.jacobs45@gmail.com .

Ever since Apple announced that third party companies are developing medical applications for the iPhone, predictions on how this will impact the medical industry have run wild. Indeed, the possibilities are endless when doctors have so much information in the palm of their hands.

  1. Easy Drug Reference – One of the biggest names in medical iPhone applications is Epocrates. This company has developed a massive, free online drug reference guide. When prescribing medication, a doctor can quickly double-check any concerns about side effects, drug interactions and more. Also, it is possible that a situation may arise where a patient doesn’t know the name of the medication they are on; only what the pill looks like. Epocrates’ drug reference has a search feature based on a medication’s appearance.
  2. Access to Health Records – More and more patients are allowing their health records to be stored online. With an iPhone, doctors can quickly access a new patient’s health records, should they not be physically available on site. This could be more than convenient; it could save lives.
  3. Quick Second Opinions – How better to serve a patient’s needs than by getting instant advice from another doctor, perhaps a specialist? For instance, a general physician could take a picture of a patient’s skin condition, email it to a dermatologist, and get a quick second opinion. That is just one of the many possibilities available with an iPhone.
  4. Clinical Decision Support – Similar to contacting another doctor, there are applications being designed that offer reliable, clinical decision support. Again, this could improve a doctor’s ability to give a patient the best care possible.
  5. Little Interference – Although physicians could have accessed online information with a personal computer before the advent of the iPhone, this would have certainly interfered with the more intimate communication between doctor and patient when someone’s face is behind a computer. Now, with the aid of a handheld device, the doctor will experience little interruption while seeing a patient.

iphone.jpg

While the iPhone depends on wireless Internet access to take advantage of online applications, this won’t be a problem for doctors in many medical facilities. Hospitals, in particular, are often wired for broadband access and this kind of support is spreading. Communication between offices is also becoming simpler, more reliable and is using less and less paper. (Many medical administrators would be happy to through their fax machine out the window, no doubt.)

The end of the month holds the iPhone Developer Summit in New York City. With more medical applications to possibly be discussed and showcased, even more possibilities will arise. With a vast database of knowledge at a doctor’s fingertips, patients should feel even more secure with the medical treatment they are receiving.

Healthcare Informational Links

Here is a great list of links from PBMI and the Takeda report.

Takeda: Prescription Drug Benefit Report

Have you ever read the annual Takeda Prescription Drug Benefit Cost and Plan Design Report?  It is a great summary of data from 340 employers representing over 6M members and this version is based on data from May and June 2007.

Here are my notes:

  •  89% use tiered formularies.  [I am amazed that 11% still have a one-tier plan.]
  • Closed formularies (where drugs not on the list aren’t covered at all) have almost disappeared.
  • 11.1% of employers use mandatory mail.
  • Mail order penetration with mandatory mail is 27.3%.
  • 26.8% of employers use retail pharmacies to dispense 60+ day prescriptions.
  • 51.5% of employers require use of a specific specialty pharmacy.  (mandatory specialty)
  • 40-70% of the specialty drug spend is under medical not pharmacy
  • Flat dollar copayments still represent about 75% of plan designs
  • The average copayments for retail are $8.91, $23.08, $39.77 and for mail are $17.99, $47.89, and $81.07.

takeda-retail-copay-trend.jpgtakeda-mail-copay-trend.jpg

  • It talks a little about using lower copayments to increase adherence:
  • The Cleveland Clinic has a plan outlined here where they dropped their statin copayments dramatically from $75 and $90 for 90-days to $6 for a generic and $8 for Lipitor or Crestor.  The drugs had to be purchased from the clinic’s pharmacies.  Additionally, the employee had to split the pills (i.e., get a Lipitor 40mg pill and split it to get two 20mg pills) except for those who required the highest doses.
    • 38% of eligible members participated
    • Adherence went up 20% in year one
    • 50% of those that participated picked up all their prescriptions in year one compared with 18% of those that didn’t participate
  • The average pharmacy reimbursement rates as a percentage off AWP were:
    • Retail brand 16.1%
    • Retail generic 43.6%
    • Mail brand 22.7%
    • Mail generic 51.8%
    • Specialty 16.5%
  • For most, they still show an average dispensing fee although I thought that was gone in mail for sure.  (It says only 20% pay a dispensing fee at mail.)
  • The brand rates seem pretty reasonable, but I think the generic rates are pretty pathetic.  I thought it would be more like 50% retail and 60% mail.
  • The GFR (generic fill rate) ranged from 4.7% to 71% at retail and 1.8% to 71.4% at mail.  (Note that your GFR at retail should be higher as their are more acute generics.)
  • The average GFR was 54.5% retail and 41.7% mail.

takeda-grf-trend.jpg

  • The copay differential between tiers one and three makes a difference…at least at retail (what about one and two?):
    • If it is $25 or more, the retail GFR was 4.9% more and if it was $65 or more at mai, the mail GFR was 0.6% less.
  • The averages for Rxs PMPM and costs were broken out by active employee and retiree:
    • Rxs PMPM were 2.1 active and 3.5 retiree
    • Gross costs PMPM were 76.15 active and 146.23 retiree
    • Net costs PMPM were $55.52 active and $122.99 (with highest being 401.32 and 359.00)
  • Rebates per branded Rx (actual not guaranteed) were:
    • $2.57 retail
    • $10.79 mail
  • There is another case study insert about the University of Michigan’s pill splitting program for statins (aka cholesterol lowering drugs).
    • Participants save 50% on copay and get a free pill splitter
    • 500 people participated saving them $195,000 and the patients saved $25,000 in copays
    • According to their director of benefits, if 25% of eligible statin users split pills, they could save $740,000 per year
    • So, they must have had about 6% participation in the year one savings above
  • I was actually shocked by the number of employers covering some OTCs (which I think is great).
    • 83.9% cover Prilosec OTC
    • 79.3% cover loratadine (Claritin)
  • 76.4% use some quantity level limits
  • 75.8% use refill too soon logic (I thought this would be 100%)
  • The classes most typically excluded from coverage

takeda-drug-exclusions.jpg

  • It lays out the most common UM (utilization management) tools used including:
    • Disease mgmt 30.5%
    • Dose optimization 22.6%
    • Outbound phone calls 17.9%
    • Step therapy 35.5%

    takeda-um-tools.jpg

  • And, finally, it gives a lot of links for more information which I will post in another entry.

Another Simple Example

I forgot the example I use the most around communications.

My first consulting project transitioning from architecture to business was for a friend’s architecture firm.  I was a 22-year old who thought I knew everything, and he was the president of a 50-person firm that he had been running for 20+ years and had taken over from his father.

His question to me was how could he figure out why he had lost several deals in a row.  I put together a survey and did structured interviews with recent wins, recent losses, and repeat customers.  In the end, the common feedback was around the way the firm presented themselves.  They talked about all the honors they won for their designs.

Interestingly, while some clients liked the idea of getting awards, most clients heard that and immediately translated it into two things: (1) not focused on their needs but on winning awards and (2) increased fees.  I worked with his team to re-frame the firm and how they presented.  We also institutionalized the survey process.

It’s now 15 years later, and he has become a great mentor for me.  They use the process, and he has continued to grow the company and win lots of work.

I was amazed at how one word positioned wrong in a 2-hour presentation was affecting them.

Customer Service Communications

Yesterday, we got a welcome surprise from a store where we had recently purchased a new couch.  They called to offer us a $750 gift card!  I had complained that I was unhappy with the installation of the couch and that it took 3 visits for them to get it resolved.

That made me start thinking about feedback and communications to companies.  I have been very successful at getting issues addressed:

  • The hotel I stay at in Michigan never has our rooms ready when we arrive.  They recently sent me a $100 gift certificate.
  • Another hotel I stayed at a few years ago had several issues that made our vacation there less than perfect.  They gave me all my frequent traveler points back.
  • An airline that had taken all my frequent flier miles for not flying them in three years reinstated my points.

I have had lots of luck where most people would simply give up.  If I reverse engineer why, it is many of the same reasons we tell clients when designing communication campaigns:

  1. Targeting matters.  [an executive is more willing to respond and take action than a customer service agent]
  2. Timing matters.  [when is the target not in meetings, working, and not having their messages screened]
  3. Channel matters.  [letter, fax, call, e-mail…which is mostly likely to get a response]
  4. Message matters.  [clear, to the point, call to action, fact-based]
  5. Tone matters.  [professional not angry]

Another great example I often use is around buying appliances.  When we were redesigning out kitchen 3 years ago, I went to the store and asked the first sales person if they did price matching.  He said yes but with a bunch of caveats.  I walked five feet from him to the next sales person and asked the same question.  He said of course, asked what we were interested in, our timing, and what research we had done.

I pulled out a list of the products we wanted with a grid of pricing.  Together we found the best time to buy, and I saved 40% off MSRP for the kitchen.  Since, I have bought appliances for a new house and had several other people buy from him.

What’s the point here??  You have to try multiple times.  If you want to communicate with someone and you have a legitimate value proposition for them, you need to reach out several times.

Remember…WIIMF…What’s In It For Me.

Another Good IDC Quote

We have been out talking to the analysts to get their feedback on the market and share some of our new ideas.  I mentioned a good quote a few weeks ago from IDC, but I was even more excited by their publication last week (see 1/2 way through the document).

The story is called “Communications Technologies – the Industry Step Child to the PHR?” and is by Janice Young.

“Amidst the market hoopla last week at HIMSS of Google’s formal entry into the healthcare market with the GoogleHealth PHR were other significant announcements focusing on what may are considered more mundane healthcare initiatives – consumer communication strategies. In particular, Silverlink Communications released two announcements in the past two weeks reflecting the next generation of healthplan investment in communications technologies.”

“The successes and opportunities of new communications tools from Silverlink, Varolii and others are largely unheralded, yet good cost/benefit studies exist. Health plans have found the return on investment and report that automated communications programs improve prescription drug cost management and increase COB information to health plans.”

“Targeted multi-channel communications tools can both improve healthplan costs and quality in the short term and also provide insight into consumer segmentation and behaviors that will be invaluable to managing the emerging consumer communications and information management platform, include PHR deployment and adoption”

Comparing our announcements to that of Google was impressive, and she clearly gets the power of the solution.

Guest: On Price/Placebo Effect

Frederick Navarro is a research psychologist who, over the past 20 years, has focused his efforts on understanding people and the factors that shape their attention to health and care seeking. He has developed a unique model that approaches health care consumer behavior from a different angle than other models today. Over the past 10 years he has done considerable work with health plans and his findings often fly in the face of conventional thinking. He posted a long comment on my post the other day about Price and Placebo effect that I thought I would post here as a “guest post”.

On the issue of predictable irrationality and perception, what about the situation where a group of people rate their health status much better than another group of people, but the first group generates nearly twice the level of medical claims as the poorer health status group. That’s counter to the current belief that health status drives claims. So, what’s going on?

[His methodology divides people into PATH ( Profiles of Activities and Attitudes Toward Healthcare) Groups as shown below.]

path-groups.jpg

Well, the difference is how each group of people judge when it is time to seek care. When do they say, it is time to go to the doctor? Type 2 people only go to the doctor when problems are serious. They ignore their health and are apathetic towards it. They have health problems, but they just live with them. Type 7 people go to the doctor at the first sign of a problem. They monitor their health and are very proactive about it. If something appears, they seek care for it. These are the types of people it seems the health industry wants to build more of to reduce costs.

In a 1995 study of Kaiser members in Hawaii, the Type 2 members rated their health status 11.9 (SF-12 scale) and Type 7 members rated their health status at 14.3. The Type 2 group had avg claims pmpy of $1,541; the Type 2 group had avg claims pmpy of $2,040. Whoops! The higher health status Type 7’s had nearly twice the claims as the lower health status Type 2.

healthstatus_kaiser.gif

Let’s bring things closer to present time. In 2004/2005 year long study of Cigna members in a DM program the same patterns were there. At the baseline, the Type 2 group reported avg health status of 3.26 (1 to 5 scale) and the Type 7 group reported avg health status of 3.45. Type 7 were higher again! Type 2 avg claims pmpy were $6,176. Type 7 avg claims pmpy were $9,910. Whoops again! After a year, the DM intervention did not change this. At the end of the study, Type 2 people reported health status at 3.3 (a touch better), and the Type 7 people reported health status at 3.54 (a touch better again). The Type 2 group’s claims went down to $4,750 pmpy. That’s over a $1,400 drop. The Type 7 groups claims after 1 year of DM intervention dropped to $9,017 pmpy (almost a $800 drop). The Type 7 higher health status group still had claims that were nearly twice the level of Type 2.

The moral to this story is that the predisposition to seek care is a huge driver of health care costs. In some groups of people it overrides their perception of their health. In the 1995 study and the 2004/2005 study, the reason why the Type 7 people had higher claims is because they came in demanding care. That’s all. And the doctors are happy to see them!

This all harkens back to an earlier blog where you discussed the Dutch study and how preventive care did not lower health care costs. Providers have convinced everybody that the cure to lower health care costs is to encourage more people to become like Type 7 and to make care more accessible and affordable.

Predictable irrationality?

Looks like it to me.

healthstatus_dm_1year.gifhealthstatus_dm_baseline.gif

Does Price Have a Placebo Effect?

I mentioned it yesterday in the post about Drug Benefit News, and I think I have talked about it early last year. The question is how do people view price as influencing their decisions about drugs.

  • Does free influence perception of value?
  • Does paying 10% of a $100 drug sound better than paying 10% of a $30 drug?

USA Today had an article the other day on this topic. They talk about a study in which subjects were given sugar pills. They were all told that it was a new pain drug. Some were told that it costs $2.50 per pill and some were told that it costs $0.10 per pill. A series of shocks were then administered to the patients. 85% who were told that it cost more (versus 61%) said that they felt less pain after the pill. (The Placebo Effect)

“What we experience is partially reality and partially what we expect to experience,” says the senior letter author, Dan Ariely, a Duke University behavioral economist whose new book, Predictably Irrational, explores why people make the choices they do.

pills2.jpgThey go on to say that this might explain why some of the Cox-IIs (i.e., Vioxx, Celebrex) were so successful and could explain why people don’t think generics are working as well as the same brand drug they were taking. They also say this could convince people to be less compliant since they don’t see as much value in the generics. [There must be a study out there that shows compliance of generics versus brands.]

This should influence how you interact with patients and present information to them to convince them of value.

You can see some additional information from one of the study authors on his blog.

Comments On Drug Benefit News

From a pharmacy benefit perspective, Drug Benefit News puts out one of the better and more focused publications. Unfortunately, it costs a lot, and I don’t always agree with the author’s opinions.

I was just reading the February 15th publication and had a few observations / comments:

  • It says you could save 10-30% of your drug costs by using a standard RFP process recommended by a consultant. [I find this very hard to believe unless you have pricing from 10 years ago. If you improve your brand discount by 2% and got a 5% improvement in generic discount and got a $1.00 more in rebates per brand Rx, you still are only around 5% in savings. Savings comes from plan design and behavioral changes. You might pay more for a consultant than you will save by using them.]
  • It says that many consulting firms are collecting large amounts of money from certain PBMs. [That may be true but is an easy thing to ask about. You should always understand what’s in it for them (or your financial advisor for that matter).]
  • It says people ask for information that can’t be verified. [That is a simple measurement issue. I definitely agree that people should spend more time on defining and understanding metrics to create Service Level Agreement (SLAs) that work. But, the smaller the company, the less likely the PBM is going to change their model to meet their specific needs.]
  • The most ridiculous thing is suggesting the mail order and specialty pharmacies give pass-through (i.e., acquisition pricing) to their clients. Come on. I don’t see them asking retailers like CVS or Walgreens to provide their acquisition price. I don’t know many companies in any industry (other than maybe non-profit) that provide their cost of goods per unit to their customers. There is tons of readily accessible data about average prices so that companies know what they should be at to be getting a reasonable price.

There was a good breakdown of marketshare in the PBM industry by lives. One thing it shows (or makes me question) is lack of movement. Express Scripts had 50M lives when I went there in 2001 which is the same number they report in 2007.

  1. CVS / Caremark 16%
  2. Medco 11%
  3. Express Scripts 9%
  4. ICORE Healthcare 7% (who??)
  5. Wellpoint 7%
  6. Pharmacare 6% (isn’t this already in the CVS number??)
  7. MedImpact 5%
  8. Argus 5%
  9. HealthTrans 3%
  10. ACS 3%
  11. Other vendors 28%

I must admit I continue to be surprised that there isn’t more consolidation. (Of course, they track 550M lives which is bigger than the US population.)

There were several good points in the specialty pharmacy story:

  • They make a good point about the shift in specialty from being focused on life threatening and rare illnesses to dealing with more chronic, life-long conditions. [Which is interesting since one of the points made at PBMI was that manufacturers are looking to get a drug to market at a higher price as a specialty drug and then expand the conditions it treats.]
  • By 2010, it is estimated that 1/2 of all drug approvals will be for “chronic biologics”.
  • This long term use combined with the cost of these drugs and their side effects makes compliance a bigger issue which combined with the challenge of self-injection should drive an increased push for patient education.
  • Biologics can cost up to $400,000 per patient per year. [Imagine what that does to the budget for a small self-insured company.]
  • 70% of products in the pipeline require “clinical insight” (versus self-injection).
  • Prime Therapeutics talks about it’s new “dynamic support model” which will vary the support based on drug and condition.

“You want to make sure you provide an appropriate amount of support, but that you don’t over support where there is no value.”  [Tom Solberg, AVP, Specialty Pharmacy, Prime Therapeutics]

Then there was a story about zero-copay generics and that getting traction.  The pros are likely more compliance and more generics.  The cons are possibly more utilization and probably no ROI.  I think the quote in the article by Tom Tran, Sr. Director of Pharmacy at HCSC is a good one:

“The value of that drug will be diminished, because anything free in the long run will have little value.”

“If the member feels that the medication they are taking is essential, you could raise [copays] $4, $10, and they’ll still see the benefit of taking my drug.  I’d rather pay $10 a month than to have my diabetes worsen and I lose my vision and I lose my feelings in my legs and [have] my big toe amputated.”

That seems like more good endorsement around the issue of patient education.

But, let me try to do the math for those of you still thinking or wanting to have your generic drugs for free.

  • Assume you have 10,000 covered lives who use 14 Rxs PMPY (per member per year)
  • Assume you have a 50% GFR (generic fill rate) with a $9 copay (per 30-day supply)
  • Assume you save $50 for every brand claim that moves to a generic
  • If you reduce your copays to $0 for generics, you will lose $9 on each of the 70,000 generic claims (10,000 x 14 x 50%) or $630,000 in patient contribution
  • To replace that, you will have to improve your generic fill rate by 9 percentage points ($630,000 / $50) which is a 20% improvement over the existing 50% GFR  [Good luck!]
  • Now, you might see benefits from improved compliance but you might also see more utilization.

Drive Thru Prescribing

If you need any more proof that Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) advertising around pharmacy works, all you had to do was read the research from USA Today, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard School of Public Health.  (see article)

  • $4.8B spent on drug advertising in 2006 (up from $2.6B in 2002)
  • 1/3 of Americans ask their MDs about an advertised medicine
  • 82% of those that ask say their MDs recommend a Rx…BUT only 44% got the drug they asked about

Of course, the question is whether this is good or bad.  Are we a sick population which needs more medication?  We are already the most medicated population ever with a growing generation that will not know anything other than being on medication.  Or, are we finding  new reasons to take medication which are driven by advertising?

That is why we have a system of checks and balances.  Patients feel sick or see an advertisement.  They speak with an MD about it and determine a treatment plan.

Of course, the system fails when those that need medication can’t get it due to financial issues.  The article mentions that:

  • 29% of Americans have not filled a prescription in the past 2 years due to cost pressures
  • 23% have cut pills in half or skipped doses to make their prescriptions last longer
  • And, 41% of families said buying drugs is sometimes a problem due to cost.

dtc.jpg

Health 2.0: Observations

(Note that this is a follow-up post to my summary of the conference.)

First, I have to say that I feel old. At Monday night’s reception, someone guessed that I was late 40’s (not that there’s anything wrong with that but it’s a decade off). For years, I wanted to be older (as a young consultant). Now, I am happy to slow that process down. Then, I had dinner last night with people in their 40’s and 50’s that are talking about Twittering and online music services and blogging for years. I felt like I was a parent listening to their teenagers talk even though I consider myself pretty technology savvy.

Second, I think it was a great conference although the next step has to include the involvement of the establishment.

Third, as I heard several people say, this is very different than your typical healthcare conference. No suits. Lots of sharing across seemly competitive companies. Fairly pointed. Patients involved.

Finally, here are a few of the thoughts / comments:

  • How can we create data that stays with the individual (i.e., portability)? As patients build content and networks and document their disease online, what happens with the logical consolidation and shakeout in the space? Do they lose their records as companies eventually go out of business?
  • Are we inevitably going toward a two tier system of healthcare for the health literate and/or wealthy and all others?
  • Where are the VCs? There were a few here. Even if they don’t buy that there is a model yet. I would think they could get great market data from attending and listening to companies.
  • Can we avoid the dotcom issue of creating things that are important to us but not scalable? Given the lack of a mechanism for systemically engaging patients in product design, this myopic view is a risk.
  • There is a definite funding question here. Do you make these DTC (direct-to-consumer) models where they pay? Do you go to the payors and ask them to fund it for their members on some PMPM basis? Or, do you take advertising dollars? And, if you take pharma advertising (for example), does that change people’s trust in the site?
  • There was a brief discussion which I think is really important. Do consumers trust a site that is “anti-establishment” and less slick or are they okay with a more “corporate” feel to a site that gives them better functionality and a better user interface?
  • Corporate blogs and personal blogs seemed to be the norm. A lot of these are companies built by passionate people that are either patients or caregivers driven into the Health 2.0 space by some event in their life. They actively use blogging and other social media to engage with a community. I mentioned the blog a few times and felt like … “of course…who doesn’t have a blog.”
  • I brought it up over lunch and heard someone else bring it up over dinner, but there was not a lot of discussion around lifecycle / phase. Patients move from newly diagnosed to ongoing care and eventually into a late stage. The solutions and their needs are different.
  • There has been talk about the hospitality industry (i.e., hotels) using employees, family members, etc. to pump up their ratings. Not sure how you control this, but is this an issue for MD ranking sites?
  • I heard very little about how to address the unengaged. Most of these solutions are on those active patients that care about their health, know they have a disease, and are willing to spend the time and effort to manage it. Just like with prescription non-compliance, the biggest issue is not managing those who don’t refill but identifying those that should be getting a prescription based on medical claims (or eventually genetic markers). This is clearly where the establishment can help. Managed care companies could use medical claims to identify people that would be benefit from these solutions and drive them use them. Assuming an ROI based on less hospital visits or some other criteria, it should pay for itself.
  • There was some discussion about mandated care for the uninsured and whether that was just a gimmee for the existing infrastructure. So, is the government rewarding those that haven’t fixed the system so far? It’s interesting. It made me draw an analogy to the auto industry. Certainly, we could fix the industry by limiting public transportation, developing a low cost car option (e.g., SmartCar), and having the government require every family to purchase a car.
  • There was a little discussion around what I would consider a typical business IT issue. Should the best-of-breed survive or is it better to settle for some lowest common denominator but provide one, integrated solution to patients. Right now, you have to use lots of sites to get different things done.
  • I thought about that Robin Williams movie about Patch Adams several times. Is our model changing to be less about administrative efficiency and more about care? [Not that I believe for a minute that we are efficient in healthcare.]
  • It made me realize that I need to think through the “Patient 2020” about what they will look like in 12 years. Transparent access to data. Integrated online tools. EMR. PHR. Community and care network tools. It won’t look anything like what we are trying to solve today.
  • Not enough talk about wellness and prevention. Some. It came up at the end around the fact that technology is typically focused on end stage solutions that are very expensive and can’t scale. Most of what was talked about here is focused on early stages and is very scalable. Clearly, this space faces the same issues as disease management. It’s logical. It seems to work in many cases, but clearly proving ROI on comparative populations while avoiding regression to the mean is difficult.
  • I think it was a person from Digitas that brought it up, but there was a comment about whether Beta is okay in healthcare. I think as long as the Beta (i.e., unfinished product) is about the UI (user interface) and not the clinical content then it should be fine.
  • iMetrikus brought up the idea of “activity based plan design” which conceptually I like.
  • Some of the models presented seemed focused on the payors as customers but would get traction with individuals that would pay. It would be interesting to see a model focused on the payors but with a DTC option which was completely automated for sales and payment in order to make it scalable.

It is important to find more patients than those that were there to be involved and help shape the future solution. It’s like HealthCentral “kick-starting” their communities by finding and recruiting (and possibly paying) 100 patients to be their super-users. As long as they are actual patients with the disease, I don’t mind.

Health 2.0: My Notes

I am just flying back from the Health 2.0 conference out in San Diego. I feel like there is a ton of information that I want to share so kudos to Matthew and Indu for the great job. (And, if you make it to the end of this post, you must really like the topic.)

I decided the best way to do this is in three posts: (1) Notes; (2) Companies; and (3) Observations. [Some people were doing live blogging which I just couldn’t do and keep focused.]

Here are a few of the other blog postings about the event:

So, let me begin here with my notes from the conference which began Monday with some informal sessions (user driven) and a deep-dive on a new vendor American Well. [I missed this event since it was so packed that it was standing room only in the hallway, and I was 5 minutes late getting off a conference call. That being said, they were in there for 3 hours so there must be something pretty interesting.] Tuesday was pretty much packed from breakfast (7:00) until I got back from dinner (11:00).

Matthew Holt:

  • Talked about his Health 2.0 picture of search, social networks, and tools. And, at the end of the conference, he showed a preliminary sketch of the model for the fall Health 2.0 conference where each of these are blown out into smaller segments.
  • Talked about the challenge of wrapping context around transitions. [In a side conversation, I thought someone else made a great point of saying that one of the biggest challenges will be how to drive change.]
  • Talked about the four stages of Health 2.0. I was soaking it in versus scribbling notes madly so all I got were phase 1 (user-generated content) and phase 2 (users as providers). But, I believe the later phases do (or should) show these models integrating into the establishment.

Susannah Fox (Pew Internet & American Life Project):
[Who by the way was a very good speaker and refreshingly gave a 30-minute presentation w/o any slides.]

  • Talked about an early 2000/2001 quote from the AMA on not trusting the Internet and a push to the physician. [That seems to have softened a bit over the years.]
  • Said that 40% of adults in America have a high school education or less which gets right to the issue of health literacy.
  • Talked about validity of online data. Researchers want to see date and source, but patients don’t look for that.
  • Talked about an article in a cancer magazine about misinformation which said the most highly correlated factor was a discussion around alternative medicine. Those sites often had misinformation on them.
  • She set the tone for the day by using the concept of a seven word expression to summarize your talk. Her’s was “Go Online. Use Common Sense. Be Skeptical.”
  • Pointed out that only 3% of e-patients report bad outcomes based on online data. [I think this whole discussion around what patients want in terms of research versus experiential data from their peers is very interesting.]
  • Talked about the white space between a “physican is omnipotent model” (my words) versus a “patient self-diagnosis world”. That is where we have to find a solution.
    • [A person from Europe who I talked with said that not only is their model different but the fact that they hold the physician on a pedestal makes some of these things impractical there.]
  • Talked about a new term for me – “participatory medicine”.
  • Said that Pew had classified people into three groups not on the concept of do you own a mobile device (for example) but on how you use it (e.g., do you feel like the device interrupts your life when it buzzes you, do you require help in setting up your devices).
    • 1/3 of Americans are “elite tech users” who own lots of devices
  • There is still minority distrust of some of these online tools. Some of this is generational.
    • The memory of the syphilis experiment is failing.
    • There is limited discussion of faith in these discussion areas which is important.
    • The older generation typically has less technical skills.
  • Her next seven word expression was “Recruit Docs. Let E-Patients Lead. Go Mobile.”
  • She described African American and Latino users of mobile devices as leveraging it as a Swiss Army knife versus a spoon. [I hope I use it more as a spork…which I assume is evolutionary over the spoon.] They use it more than TV or computers.

Patient Videos:

  • One of the most engaging segments was a series of video clips from patients.
    • The founder of i2y.org (I’m Too Young For This) spoke about being diagnosed with cancer at an early age and how he overcame the physical challenges and has become a go to destination for people about cancer.
    • The founder of Heron Sanctuary in Second Life talked about how she has limited mobility in real-life and her ability to create a world in second life where she can help people and gave examples of how people are using this virtual reality tool.
    • A young woman with RSD talked about how she has used ReliefInsite to manage her disease and pain. She also had the same issue of being “too young” to have RSD and the challenges of finding a physician to help her and believe her.

The format for most of the day was to have 3-4 founders or executives from companies get up and talk for 4 minutes on their company. Then a panel of people would comment and questions would get asked. On the one hand, it was a compelling, fast-based approach that kept your attention. [No nodding off at this conference.] On the other hand, it was heavy on marketing and light on really drilling down on the problem. [Although I am not sure that was the purpose or even achievable without making this a multi-day conference.]

So…here were a few of my quick notes on some of the companies. I will post another one trying to look at some screen shots and other observations. If you didn’t get mentioned here, it’s likely because I was simply watching or distracted. Hopefully, I catch everyone on the Health 2.0 Company post.

  • WEGO Health – allows consumers to rank content…i.e., directed search…gave example of search for some health topic that returned 98,000 links on Google, but only 50 here…option to score after consumer uses the link
    • Seems interesting. How often is it updated? How do you build awareness? Can it be part of a broader search engine? Seems like a likely acquisition to be another option like images or desktop from a search criteria within Google.
  • HealthCentral – biggest brand you don’t know (or something to that effect)…have 40+ sites around specific disease states…6M unique visits per month…new VC money…100 “expert patients” found to create initial communities…ability to create inspirational cartoons that summarize your story…good GUI
    • I really liked some of the features they demonstrated (in 5 minutes). They talked about creating micro-communities (e.g., spouses of people with a disease).
    • The idea of “recruiting” 100 “expert patients” to build an active community was one of the best I saw.

In preparation for discussion on patient-MD solutions, someone shared that only 2-3% of MDs allow appointments to be booked online. There was discussion that patients don’t really look to the Internet to find a physician or hospital. They look at what’s in-network and they ask their friends. There was an example given for Yelp which is used to rank restaurants, but allows people to review the physician. [A comment I heard later was when will we see a site ranking the sites that rank physicians.]

  • Carol (company name) – talked about mall concept in that people shop for something like a physical or allergy test not necessarily a specific type of MD…provide cash prices and insured prices
    • Seemed interesting. I will have to think more about how I search.
  • Vitals.com – I talked about this company on the blog a few weeks ago…still like the graphics…saw a few other features that I hadn’t noticed such as customizing the search criteria and using slider bars so that you get weighted recommendations

I thought there was a good discussion on why would an MD participate in a ranking site.

  • Help them sub-specialize (i.e., I want to treat knee pain not neck pain).
  • Allow them to attract the right type of patient that matches their style and focus.
  • Ego…allowing them to manage comments.

IDEO, the famous industrial design, company facilitated a lunch workshop and talked at the conference. For simplicity, I will blend both notes here. (see old post about IDEO book)

  • Talked about user-centric design which is key. At lunch asked us to come up with a solution to address the problems of diabetes patients. Showed us four interviews with diabetics. But the stress was not on solving what we thought was their problem, but trying to actually listen to what they say and do in order to find something. Key point.
  • Talked about empathic research showing that we don’t say what we think, do what we should logically do an online car loan, or even do what we think we do.
  • Talked about a book called Thoughtless Acts.
  • Gave examples of project with Bank of America that showed how most people round up their credit card payments so they started a “Keep the Change” campaign which allowed them to attract 2M new members.
  • Walked through an example of creating the Humalog pen for Eli Lilly.
  • Talked about creating a new bike design.
  • All of them were common in the framework they use and their focus on the person/user/patient/member.
  • Lunch was an interesting workshop where you listened to the videos, identified issues, brainstormed solutions, picked a solution to “pitch”, and then shared your idea with your neighbor. At our table…
    • Saw problem largely as educational / informational
      • Don’t know what to expect
      • Don’t know where to get information
      • Don’t understand lifecycle and treatment plan options
      • Don’t know what to do with the pump
    • Talked about everything from portal to device solutions
    • Settled on an iPump concept that would blend an iPod with an insulin pump and foster a community around it to develop cases (e.g., a belt that it fit into as part of a formal dress), videos to download to it on education, connectivity to trigger auto-refills, etc.

Then we had several discussions by physicians that were blending the old model of house calls with technology. Seems very cool (for those that can afford it). Although one example was relevant, it missed the masses. One showed a trader who was too busy to leave the trading floor, but he had a sore throat so the physician came to his office, took a culture, and gave him an antibiotic.

  • One great point that they made was the benefit of seeing the patient’s environment (i.e., home) in helping them manage a disease.
  • I loved the fact that they would send me an e-mail with my notes from the visit rather than trying to scribble things down while they are talking.
    • Of course, this begs the question of literacy and teaching physicians how to communicate in simple, non-medical language.
  • Another great point was the issue of technology as a good unidirectional solution. For example, if the physician wants to know whether something works, an e-mail is very efficient if it does. Leaving a voicemail so that you play tag back and forth only to realize the patient is feeling better is a waste of time.
  • Jay Parkinson referred to himself as the “Geek Squad” for healthcare (think Best Buy computer technicians). Great analogy. He also showed this seemingly very intuitive and easy to use EMR called Myca which I believe he has built.
  • Somebody tied this back to the physician ranking discussion by asking how this new flexibility of business model would be captured and tracked on those sites (e.g., does MD respond to e-mail).
  • I can remember if I jotted this down or one of them said it but I have “More Time. Save Money. Less Costs.” I think this was in response to a question I e-mailed in about how these new models were affecting the compensation and lifestyle of the physicians.

Phreesia talked about their tablet solution (i.e., electronic clipboard) for the physician’s office. They had an interesting statistic that 49M Americans move each year so address data is constantly changing. (Not to mention plan coverage, drug use, etc.) They are getting 200-300 new MDs a month to sign-up for this.

I don’t see myself using it, but this is an interesting option. Organized Wisdom talked about their product LiveWisdom which allows users to leverage a live person (I assume MD or RPh or RN.) via chat to address questions they might otherwise contact their MD about. They pay $1.99 per minute.

  • As they admitted, they are limited in scope and often have to refer the patient to an MD. They seemed to me limiting, but creating an opportunity to partner with American Well who helps you find an MD, sees if they have time to talk, and launches an interactive video session and chat session with the MD right then for a pre-agreed upon rate.

There were two patients there that were involved in lots of feedback sessions. The first was a woman who has lost 144 pounds (w/o going on The Biggest Loser) and has become an online advocate and support mechanism for lots of people using DailyStrength. The second was Amy Tenderich who is a very active diabetic and blogs at DiabetesMine.

Amy’s story was great. Her blog is very engaging and as Matthew said it is “thought by many to be the #1 blog for patients“. I had a chance to talk with her and her husband and heard a lot about how it started and the response. It is a great story, and she is very knowledgeable and was willing to really push the patient-centric agenda at the conference.

Someone made the point about linking patient costs to compliance with their care plan which I have blogged about before. I completely agree that the patient should be rewarded for using self-service options (web vs. live agent) and for staying compliant.

ReliefInsite talked about their solution and shared that 1 in 6 Americans suffer from chronic pain. No matter what the CEO said, he couldn’t do better than the opening patient video which used their solution. (Which he said was a surprise to him.)…seemed like a good, interactive tools with nice reporting.

Emmi Solutions showed their online educational tool which had videos built in a conversational tone and used animation to help people understand procedures and their disease. Seemed great. Said that informed patients are less likely to sue.

MedEncentive is one that I will have to spend more time looking at. It plays to the incentive question and rewarding patients and MDs. They talked about a 10:1 ROI and said the medically literate patients have less hospital visits.

[Completely off topic, but from the conference, I heard someone talking about CouchSurfing which is apparently a “network” where you allow people (that you don’t know) to come sleep on your couch. I thought that died with hitchhiking in the 60s.]

A consultant from Mercer commented that some large employers with physicians on staff are more effective [at health and cost management] than small health plans. Not sure if that was a complement to employers or an insult to health plans.

BenefitFocus which automates the set-up of your benefits (imagine no more paperwork to enroll) had a great video showing the future with personal consultants (via hologram), biometric signature, and other cool things. [I have heard good things about them for years although they never returned my phone calls several years ago even with name dropping one of their biggest investors.]

Virgin Healthmiles was there and talked about their pedometer which is tracked online. They also have an employer kiosk for tracking weight and body fat. Offline, he also told me that they are rolling out connections which will be on the treadmills and other machines at participating gyms. I am a big fan of what they are doing. I believe he said they recommend 7,000 steps a day per person (and think he told me that 2500 is a mile).

Stan Nowak (my boss) presented the Silverlink story talking about using technology to engage patients, the importance of capturing data, extreme personalization, and showed recent success improving compliance by 3x by rapidly doing a series of pilots.

  • I am not sure I have figured out our seven word description but here’s a few attempts:
    • Patients Are Different. Personalization Matters. Be Proactive.
    • Preference Based Communications Engage Patients & Drive ROI.
    • Segment. Learn. Interact. Empower. Use Communications Appropriately.

iMetrikus talked about their solution which connects over 50 biometric devices today into backend healthcare systems. They charge $3 PMPM which caused me to raise an eyebrow. It is a great solution and integration is a nightmare, but that seems like a lot of money. But, I am all about ROI. If I can get better return on this than on another project and it exceeds my cost of capital, why wouldn’t I do it.

iConecto didn’t present but had a booth and introduced a section. But, I love the concept of using play (e.g., Wii) to drive health.

To be fair, I will even include my notes about Eliza Corporation (our competition). Their CEO and our CEO did a podcast with Matthew the weekend before which you can listen to here. The messaging is fairly similar (although I have a strong bias about why us). She talked about tailoring [of messaging] being the new black. She talked about using clinical and demographic data to drive programs. They are a good company, and it was well done. [I was even flattered that several of their employees said that they read my blog.] Both companies commented on how they feel old (~7 years) compared to a lot of the companies presenting here (~2 years).

  • One thing that I find strange is for two companies that pretty evenly split the healthcare marketplace for Strategic HealthComm is that we are located within 10 miles of each other near Boston.

At one point, there was a discussion around ROI especially on new technologies and how to get that first big project. One of the panelists said that a 1:1 ROI over two years would be sufficient. [Not true for any company that I have worked at or consulted to.]

The final panel discussion and closing statements had a lot of good content:

  • Discussion of the patient as a provider and what that could mean.
  • Discussion of importance of sharing information across solutions.
  • The concept of citizen (European) versus patient.
  • From the Wired magazine participant, discussion around fidelity versus flexibility:
    • Disk versus MP3
    • HDTV versus Tivo
    • Microsoft versus Google
  • Importance of moving upstream in care
    • Disease management
    • Wellness
    • Prevention
    • Diet
  • As part of upstream discussion, talked about involving the food companies and used the analogy of inviting the oil companies to a green conference. [I wondered where the MCOs were, the hospital networks, and the politicians.]
  • The author of the book “Demanding Medical Excellence” (who I believe is part of the Health 2.0 staff talked about “random acts of doctoring” and the issue of solving healthcare for the few or the masses.
  • Indu talked about building a new system versus extending and improving the existing system. [A great question]
  • I think it was Matthew that brought up the issue of designing for credibility.

Wow! If you made it through this thesis, good for you. I hope it’s helpful. It is certainly easier than me trying to find my notes two months from now or sending a bunch of e-mails to people on sections they might find interesting.

Global Eating Habits

I typically delete almost all e-mails that I get at home with attachments (based on general paranoia about viruses). But, my cousin sent me one about global eating habits which is basically a photo essay with a few “statistics”. Of course, it has no source so I post it as believable and good for dialog, but don’t bet the farm on it.  But, given the rising food prices globally, this may be a more front page issue soon.

My two big takeaways were:

  1. Our eating habits reflect our obesity issue.
  2. Wow. A little money can make a big difference in the fight against poverty.

Germany: The Melander family of Bargteheide – Food expenditure for one week: 375.39 Euros or $500.07

families-2.jpg

United States: The Revis family of North Carolina – Food expenditure for one week $341.98

families-us.jpg

Mexico: The Casales family of Cuernavaca – Food expenditure for one week: 1,862.78 Mexican Pesos or $189.09

families-4.jpg

Poland: The Sobczynscy family of Konstancin-Jeziorna – Food expenditure for one week: 582.48 Zlotys or $151.27

families-5.jpg

Egypt: The Ahmed family of Cairo – Food expenditure for one week: 387.85 Egyptian Pounds or $68.53

families-egypt.jpg

Ecuador: The Ayme family of Tingo – Food expenditure for one week: $31.55

families-7.jpg

Bhutan: The Namgay family of Shingkhey Village – Food expenditure for one week: 224.93 ngultrum or $5.03

families-8.jpg

Chad: The Aboubakar family of Breidjing Camp – Food expenditure for one week: 685 CFA Francs or $1.23

families-chad.jpg


Healthcare Costs Continue To Rise

No big surprise here. Costs up. Incomes down. Sicker people. More treatment options. More technology. More access. More costs. Administratively complex system. Frustrated patients.

Maybe the only big surprise that I think exists is the disparity between spending across the country (i.e., how much they spend to treat a condition in one state versus another) and the disparity in outcomes between the US and other countries.

But, the facts are important and certainly drive the focus on this within the election.

Here are a few things from a recent article about HC spending doubling by 2017:

  • One of every $5 spent in the US will go to health care by 2017 (more than $4 trillion/year).
  • 6.7% annual increase (3x inflation) is driven by increased demand, higher prices, larger population, and aging population.
  • Government will be responsible for 49% of the costs (versus 46% in 2006) over the next decade.
  • Average spending per person will go from $7,026 (2006) to $13,101 (2017E).

“Health is projected to consume an expanding share of the economy, which means that policymakers, insurers and the public will face increasingly difficult decisions about the way health care is delivered and paid for,” CMS economists said. (source)

More On Lack of Sleep

sleeping.jpgIt is an interesting topic so articles on the impact of lack of sleep always catch my eye. So, yesterday’s USA Today article was no difference. Here are a few things from that article:

  • Nearly 3 in 10 workers have become very sleepy, or even fallen asleep, at work in the past month. (National Sleep Foundation)
  • About 70M Americans have problems sleeping. (Hence a large spike in prescriptions in this category.)
  • Some companies like Union Pacific are even allowing employees to nap during the workday. (Moving from the dotcoms to the blue chips. I remember seeing a person get fired for nodding off in a meeting.)
  • 36% of workers have nodded off or fallen asleep while driving.
  • 12% have been late to work because of sleepiness.
  • The article talks about other issues from lack of sleep including accidents, productivity, impatience with others, and difficulty concentrating. (And, I have talked several times about the correlation with obesity which drives up medical costs dramatically.)
  • Employees with more than one job have the hardest time with 43% saying they only get a good night’s sleep a few nights a month.

It’s interesting. Not only does it affect employees, but it also affects kids. I hear people talk about their kids going to bed at midnight. Considering kids need 9-12 hours of sleep a night, that can’t work if the kids go to school or the parents work. I always think a good test is how often you wake up before your alarm or your kids wake themselves up.

Wait: I am still at the drive-in

Sometimes it’s nice when content just comes to you by doing your daily routine. For a host of reasons, we use two pharmacies. Our grocery store where I know the pharmacists by name and even socialize with one of the two that lives down the street from us. (A sign that I am either friendly or have had sick kids.)

On the other hand, when we have the kids in the car or it is raining, we often go to the local Walgreens which is open 24×7 and has a drive-thru. A few months ago, I was at the Walgreens clinic and was impressed to watch their pharmacist interact with patients on a very personal level.

Last night, I was shocked at my experience with the technician. Here is the quick story in bullets (which is how I think):

    * Drive up to pick up medication.
    * She says hello. I tell her why I am there and send my credit card.
    * I look down at my Blackberry and next thing I know I hear the box coming down with my son’s antibiotic.
    * The box opens and the prescription falls out and into a big puddle on the ground.
    * I get out of the car and pick up the muddy prescription.

      So…what’s wrong with this picture???

    * The pharmacy tech never offered me any counseling or asked if I had any questions.
    * The tech never said good-bye or thank you for your business.
    * The tech left the window as soon as she put the medication in the box and never saw the problem I had getting out of the car and picking up a wet, muddy prescription bag.

      I don’t think of this as a Walgreen’s issue, but a technician issue. Clearly not a customer focused person.