Archive | Technology RSS feed for this section

E-mailing Your Physician – A Likely Trend?

This seems to be a topic hotly debated right now. I certainly would love to e-mail my physicians. Between travel and phone calls, we end up playing tag for days. Additionally, I love e-mail for its ability to provide me with a trail of what we discussed. Of course, there are lots of issues not least being reimbursement:

  • The studies show that visits go down when they use e-mail. Will they willingly reduce revenue?
  • If it is simply replaces the call, that is probably easy to justify. If it becomes more clinical in nature (i.e, an e-visit), what new issues does this bring in?
  • Is it secure? Is security any different than the phone today?
  • Is it your physician responding or someone on staff? Do you care?

“People are able to file their taxes online, buy and sell household goods, and manage their financial accounts,” said Susannah Fox of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. “The health care industry seems to be lagging behind other industries.” Doctors have their reasons for not hitting the reply button more often. Some worry it will increase their workload, and most physicians don’t get reimbursed for it by insurance companies. Others fear hackers could compromise patient privacy — even though doctors who do e-mail generally do it through password-protected Web sites.

There are lots of blog posts on this so I will point you to a few of them rather than starting a whole new discussion:

From a corporate perspective, I then have to ask whether health plans and PBMs should (or could) communicate with the physician through e-mail. Again, more efficient, allows them to track history (no more he said she said), accessible anytime, and can link to more information. My general opinion is that there must be a mechanism to parse the e-mails into buckets (general patient exchange, e-visit, payor information). They should get paid for the e-visit. The other two are just a new channel for what they do today. (There are separate arguments for whether they should get paid for those functions, but let’s not let that detract from solving one issue at a time.)

Silverlink Coming To A City Near You

I am really excited about a new initiative at work.  We have pulled together a great set of speakers and are doing a road show around the country.

The speakers include:

The topic of the event is Healthcare Communications: Think Differently and is about how to engage the new healthcare consumer and drive behaviors in scale.  Very much like what a lot of the talks were about at the World Healthcare Congress.  It’s not simply getting data and information, but it is about making that information actionable.  That is exactly what this 1/2 day session will be about.

The meetings will be in Boston, NY, Hartford, Minneapolis, Oakland, and Westlake (CA).  Click here to find out more information and to get registered.  We hope to see you there.

Hidden Gem at WHCC 2008

For those of you missing the World Health Care Congress 2008 in DC, you are missing a good meeting.  It has lots of networking opportunities, good speakers, lots of company booths, and good content.  I have been here and trying to run between presentations, meetings, and interviews.

I went to a presentation yesterday on PHRs (personal health records) which is a hot topic here.  I think the presentation by Jan Oldenburg (Practice Leader, Health Content, Internet Services Group, Kaiser Permanente) could be the the hidden gem of the conference.  I know a lot of people will immediately discount it for being part of an IDS (integrated delivery system) but don’t.  There is a lot to learn here.

Some of the key things include:

  • Integration of the PHR and EMR.  [Their EMR is from Epic.]
  • A focus on four key attributes – transparency, accessibility, consistency, and security.
  • Four major components: record of information (lab values, visits, notes), an interaction tool (e-mail your physician, HRA), transaction engine (refills), and links to health content.

They have an amazing 2M members on the PHR with over 60% who signed in and used the tool more than 5 times in 2007.  [They probably deserve an award just for this ability to create a sticky application.]  And, 16% signed in more than 12 times.  […which is probably all of their chronic patients with co-morbities.]

Jan talked about their promotion of the site which includes all of their materials, registration drives, and even physicians giving out cards promoting the site.  She talked about making meaningful improvements like moving from mailing out the password to the patient to instant password set-up using a similar algorythm to what banks use.  (This improved their activation to 88% over the past 2 months.  They used to lose 30% between password request and actual registration.)

And, it sounds like they have taken a very thoughtful approach to the application:

  • She spoke about the fact that they had over 3.6M e-mail exchanges between MDs and patients in 2007.  Originally, they didn’t pay MDs for e-mails since it was like returning phone calls.  But, they are looking for how to distinguish between an e-visit and an e-mail.

“E-mail helps me take better care of myself” [a quote from a patient]

  • In a published study, they showed that patients using e-mail had 7-10% less visits and 14% less use of the phone for support.  [very impressive]  But…to George Halvorson’s point on day one, this is a perfect example of misaligned incentives.  The MD uses e-mail to improve health and patient satisfaction but makes less revenue.
  • They addressed one not so obvious issue which is timing of data being released.  For sensitive lab values, they are either delayed so the physician sees it first or its only released after the physician approves it.  The key is that the physicians don’t want the patients to see the data before they get a chance to call them.
  • The patient can take an HRA (health risk assessment) and decide whether or not to share it.
  • They have some impressive statistics around changing behavior:
    • 55% lost weight
    • 58% decreased stress
    • 78% had better pain management
  • They are just beginning to analyze who the users are (e.g., chronic patients, acute patients, family).  This was a question in every PHR meeting yesterday.
  • Some of their key learnings included:
    • Information has to be timely and current
    • You have to create “in the moment” opportunities to act (i.e., e-mail your provider)
    • You have to create teachable moments
    • You have to meet members where they live
    • You have to heal the fractures of our healthcare system

“Patients who use the PHR are 65% more likely to stay with Kaiser when they have a choice of plan options.”  [WOW!  Talk about a case for adoption.]

  • They were one of the first ones that I heard talk about working with portability standards to move data from PHR to PHR and to a DTC model (i.e., Google, Microsoft).
  • The final point which was similar to what I discussed with ActiveHealth was around genomics.  Jan talked about some of the analysis they were doing thinking out years in the future about how that data could influence generations.

This is certainly worth following and looking at as a model.  Some of the things are easier because of their model (e.g., getting MDs to use e-mail and promote the web), BUT somethings are lessons that can be leveraged.

Data + Rules + Transportable = ActiveHealth PHR

I had the chance yesterday to sit down with Nita Stella (SVP of Product Management at ActiveHealth) and talk about their PHR.  It was a helpful meeting given that I spent much of today in PHR discussions.  Some of my takeaways were:

  1. You have to have a PHR which pulls in your claims data.
  2. You need to have rules which use the data to drive specific actions.
  3. The PHR has to be transportable.

ActiveHealth has two ways that the PHR is offered: (1) through your payor and (2) direct-to-consumer (launching next week).  This works great if you originally get it through your payor and have your claims data pulled in.  Then, even if you leave, you can take the data with you.  Additionally, they are linked to HealthVault (Microsoft offering) which should help address some of the transportable issues.

Their key offering has been about using an evidence-based approach to drive decisioning using business rules so from what I know this is a key component of their offering (see more on Care Engine).

We talked a little about size and utilization.  Some of the statistics that I wrote down were:

  • They have 6M eligible users (i.e., provided through their payor).
  • Average use is 40% (i.e., meaning that they register and sign-in).
  • Use ranges from 10% – 75% with the top client using incentives to drive adoption.
  • Based on some initial data, they are getting 1.7 visits on average.
  • Most of the repeat visits are due to an e-mail being triggered to let the patient know of some care alert.  [Since e-mail is not secure and you can’t send PHI (protected health information), I wonder how much more effective this would be using a different medium that included personalized information.]

She gave me a tour of the application which has a nice GUI (graphical user interface).  I liked the fact that that alerts and reminders were at the top of the page when you logged in and prompted you for an action.  Additionally, so you couldn’t just defer the action, it asks you for a reason if you choose to ignore it.  [That would be interesting data to see and track.  Why do consumers ignore opportunities and how does that vary by segment.]

I asked her what they were doing about using genetic markers and pulling in data from companies like 23andMe.   [A topic that came up in several PHR presentations today.]  She mentioned that they were talking with Rand about this and thinking through it.

The final point that I took away was that in using their business rules they are focused on pulling out the alerts and/or reminders where they have more than one marker to indicate a possibility (to eliminate false positives).

Obviously, the key to all of this is getting consumers engaged; keeping them engaged; and making the application valuable in ways that they want to use it.  A challenge for everyone in the space.

Can We Build The Goodies (PHR)?

I am sitting in on a discussion around PHRs and Consumer Connectivity which features Jeffrey Gruen (Chief Medical Officer at Revolution Health) and Jeffery Rideout (Chief Medical Officer from Health Evolution Partners).

Let’s start with utilization – only 10% of people have access to a PHR (Personal Health Record) through their plan and only about 2% actually use it (at best).  This brings three challenges to the table: (1) building awareness; (2) security and trust and (3) automating the data load.  The next question is can you make these fun and engaging tools (i.e., the goodies).

The presenters and the facilitator who is from Carol all start with a fairly skeptical view of the world.  They pointed out that it’s like an ink test…everyone sees something different.

It seems to be a big challenge.  Do you build it for what everyone wants which would be a laundry list or do you build it for what you think they want which generalizes?  I do agree that systemically the value is collecting and tracking data that can be shared with your care team across providers and insurers.

I must admit that some of the things that I would want include:

  1. Claims access (lab, medical, pharmacy)
  2. Tracking of OTCs (pulled from my savings accounts)
  3. Current benefit information (which assumes it is transferable across payors)
  4. Disease information
  5. A communication hub for sending and receiving secure messages
  6. Outbound reminders to me about events or opportunities
  7. Identification of care opportunities
  8. Tracking of information
  9. Integration of health social networks
  10. Recommendations of things to do or act upon

But, like I would consult any sales person, why are we talking functionality and features versus value.  From a value perspective, I want a safe, proactive application that helps me become healthier.  Not an easy request.  If I track my running, can it tell me that I am adding miles too fast?  Can it tell me about a drug-drug interaction?  Can it tell me that I paid too much for a treatment?  Can it track my total spend?  Can it help me predict comorbities based on data and possibly even my genomics information?

One of the members of the audience chimed in (rather passionately) that no one wants a PHR from a payor or stand-alone company.  The majority want it from the physician.  [An opinion of one, but I don’t and can’t imagine getting anything from my physician.  Maybe I don’t have the right relationship or the right chronic diseases, but I move and I want to have the choice to find the best doctor and not feel stickiness to them.]

Here’s a couple of presentations on this:

I didn’t realize until yesterday that for the DTC (direct-to-consumer) PHRs that are available the consumer has to actually enter all their own data.  It isn’t automated.  What a potential nightmare.

So, a real couple of questions are:

  • Who is this for – patient, providers, payors, care team?
  • Why would I ever spend anytime on a PHR if I couldn’t transfer it to my next payor?  I think this makes a play for Google and Microsoft and Dossia to provide a backbone that all the other PHRs use to create interoperability.

Upcoming Webinars

If you missed it last week, I am giving a repeat performance of my webinar on retention.  I am going to talk about driving customer satisfaction and building loyalty to improve retention which is and should be a hot topic for everyone in healthcare. (Sign up here for the 23rd at 1:00 EDT)

Additionally, my peers are giving a webinar on closing the adherence gap which should be another hot topic for many of you.  (Sign up here for their sessions on April 30th and May 22nd)

Wrong Question: What Does The Consumer Want?

After hearing Grant Harrison (VP, Integrated Consumer Experience) speak a few times on stage yesterday about his role at Humana, I was glad that I had time booked with him to learn more about what he does. I found it to be a very interesting discussion. Grant works in the Innovation group at Humana, and he brings a background which includes Virgin HealthMiles where I believe he was one of the founders and time at Tesco and SkyTV (among other consumer facing experiences).

The first thing we talked about was their VirtualMe initiative which is the creation of an avatar (i.e., virtual persona) for use on the web. They haven’t launched it yet, but it sounded like it was an effort to give some personality and interactivity to the consumer. Interestingly, they are already working on a mobile solution and how to use this in kiosks within the physicians office to pull up your data and minimize your rework. As we continued to discuss this, Grant talked about pushing it to the physician as an interface for them to input data essentially into the patient’s page or portal. I asked him if this would essentially create an integrated PHR / EMR which was shared by both parties which he agreed it could. [Maybe someday they will use the avatars in Second Life to open up a virtual Humana location.]

I asked him about creating a points program since he had done that at Tesco in the UK. He mentioned that they were looking at it. One of the things he mentioned was that they believed the amount of points or incentives you had to offer someone was directly linked to how good of an application you had and how clearly the patient saw value from their interaction. [It’s a great point.] Interestingly, he used RealAge as a good example of an HRA that people willingly do all the time. I never thought of RealAge that way.

When I started asking him about measuring success, he pointed out to me that people who ask “what does the consumer want?” don’t know what they are doing. Essentially, they are trying to generalize the healthcare masses when it is all about micro-segmentation. [It was clearly an opportunity for me to plug what I work on at my day job at Silverlink, but I was good and stuck to the press role.] He talked about a current effort they have to learn about the “care-giving woman” who is between 35-65 and has both a child to care for and a parent.

In talking about groups, we talked about a few things like measuring happiness. He had mentioned that this was their objective and talked about the whole body of international research on this topic and how you could look at proxy metrics like their engagement as a measure of happiness. We also talked about segmentation models and tracking things like their awareness and/or interest in communications from Humana.

We talked briefly about retention at the end of the discussion which seems like something they are getting ready to address with a focus on group retention, brokers, and Medicare lives. [He is one of a few healthcare people I know that ever talk about retention in groups…which I believe is a clear opportunity.]

“Not an insight unless you act on it.”

I think this quote was a good ending to the discussion since I was asking about what they were doing to actualize this information. Another question I had had was whether they would really build out all this within Humana or take it out to an Entrepreneur in Residence at a VC firm. I know we struggled at Express Scripts when we looked at how to develop and manage businesses that had little (operationally) in common with the core business. [As an interesting side note, I asked him what he thought about Express Scripts recent announcement about their Center for Cost Effective Consumerism, but it wasn’t on his radar screen at all.]

Finally…Digitally Integrated Coupons

Using Shortcuts.com, Kroger has become the first retail partner to link their loyalty card to their digital coupon service.  I find this to be a great idea.  The consumer can go online and search for coupons by brand, product, or category.  They then add those coupons to their account.  When they use their loyalty card at checkout, the coupons are redeemed automatically.

No more paper.  No more remembering.

What a great opportunity.  If I worked at pharma, I would be looking at how I could get my over-the-counter products (OTCs) and even my Rx products into a program like this and link them to my health savings account or flexible spending account card from companies like the Benny Card or TriHealix (for example).

Blogging Next Week – WorldHealthcareBlog

Next week, I will be posting my blogs to this site and to the WorldHealthcareBlog as part of my press efforts at the conference in DC.  I look forward to meeting lots of industry people there and have set up a bunch of interviews to talk about topics such as:

  • Gaining mindshare with the patient / member / consumer / customer
  • Mass personalization
  • PHR adoption
  • Consumerism
  • Patient segmentation
  • Getting ready for the individual market
  • Building trust with patients

More On Sound And HealthCare

Noel Franus at Sonic ID posted a follow-up entry on his blog to my comment about sonic (or audio) branding.

I like the description on his blog about what and why:

Sound has an immediate, direct link to both the rational and emotional parts of our brain. Sound shapes our thoughts, our feelings, our behaviors, our lives.

Yet most brands lack an awareness of the power of sound; many spend millions each year on music, sound and voice…but very little of that is influenced by strategy. Those touchpoints are disconnected dots, and for customers, that’s a disconnected brand and a poor investment.

Our goals are to change that — to strengthen connections between people and brands through the use of sound, and to provide economic value in doing so.

The reality is that there is so many multi-media opportunities for us to build branding and awareness using sounds.

2008 Outcomes Conference

As a follow-up to my last post, I thought I would share some of the agenda items and the new Drug Trend Report from Express Scripts‘ Outcomes conference 2008 which is happening right now.  Unfortunately, they don’t let many external people in (even on my own dime) to hear the presentations.  I have to get it off the website and talk about it 3rd hand.

I will have to read the report and will have more to share.  Here are a few things that caught my eye:

As you can see from the agenda, several topics around consumerism which is a hot topic there.

Developing Policy Through Social Networking Tools

I was looking for something else early this morning and was surprised to see that Senator McCain (or someone on his staff) had posted the following question on LinkedIn.  So far, there are well over 2,000 answers.  I think this is a healthy use of a tool like this to get feedback.

What is the biggest challenge our country faces?

Our country is faced with challenges as we enter into the 21st century. I am prepared to effectively deal with these challenges and lead our country as President on Day 1. Please let me know what you view as the biggest challenge America faces and how you would like your President to address this challenge.

My response was that there wasn’t one, but three:

  • How to reskill the country to continue to be competitive without impacting a generation?
  • How to create a universal healthcare system while rewarding the entrepreneurial and capitalist beliefs of the country?
  • How to contribute to the global economy and political stability without missing opportunities within the country for development?

Several Good Entries On Other Blogs

I was doing some blog surfing this morning and found a few entries worth going out and reviewing:

On EverythingHealth:

On HealthCareReformNow!:

On e-patients:

On The Sentinel Effect:

On Running a Hospital:

And to wrap up, on the Forrester Marketing Blog, you can get links to all the information being captured at their event on Engagement.

Medco on Future of Pharmacy

Medco has introduced a new publication called Perspectives. The one I just read was by Dr. Robert Epstein who is their Chief Medical Officer and is about how pharmacy will become personalized, specialized, and consumer driven. It is a well written piece with some good and interesting facts. Here are a facts and takeaways:

  • “Over the past five years we’ve seen a 60 percent increase in adult ailments diagnosed in children and treated with adult medicines.”
  • “The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), drugs for heartburn and acid-reflux disease, increased by 60 percent in children between the ages of 1 and 4. This is despite studies revealing that as many as 95 percent of young children who present with symptoms of reflux self-correct for the condition in 12 to 16 months. Furthermore, some recent research suggests the long-term use of these products – particularly in the early years of life – can lead to infections, pneumonia or gastroenteritis.”
  • “Blockbuster medicines in three new major therapeutic categories – Fosamax® for osteoporosis, Risperdal®, an antipsychotic, and Imitrex® for migraines – soon lose patent protection.” [He then suggests that payors begin to look at strategies for driving Fosamax and Imitrex marketshare now, especially for new patients, so that when they go generic they are positioned to take advantage of the savings.]
  • He talks about the changing guidelines for hypertension, asthma, and cholesterol and points out that “It’s estimated that 25 percent of Americans have hypertension, and another 25 percent have “pre-hypertension” – which means half of the U.S. population will become candidates for treatment.”
  • He talks about nano-technology and gives the following example:

“One company, based in Houston, has taken nano-sized particles of gold, which are injected into the bloodstream and leach from the leaky blood vessels associated with rapidly growing tumors. When exposed to infrared light – these gold particles literally absorb the heat and destroy the tumor. Called AuroLaseTM Therapy, within 10 days of a single treatment this therapy caused, laboratory rats with prostate cancer to attain a 90-percent survival rate.”

  • “More than one in five people placed on Coumadin® are hospitalized by side effects, many of which could be averted by genetic tests to more accurately guide proper dosing”

Maternal-Fetal Surgery: Trade-off Examples

One of the key parts of healthcare is the need to make tradeoffs especially when it comes to treatment plans. Exercise requires a commitment and can make you sore. Some drugs have side effects that may impact other parts of the patient’s life. Surgeries carry risk.

With that in mind, I found an article in the American Way magazine interesting in its discussion of maternal-fetal surgery. This is a technique where a doctor uses a fetoscope (telescope with a small camera at the end) to go into the uterus through a tiny incision (0.15 inches wide) to stabilize life-threatening blood-supply imbalances (e.g., twin-twin transfusion syndrome) and through larger incisions to remove rapidly growing and life threatening tumor masses. As you can imagine, this is controversial. There are risks for the mother and no guarantees that it will be successful.

There were less than 1,000 surgeries between 2005 and 2006, and it sounds like it is used for extreme cases today (i.e., less than 10-20% chance of the fetus living). A clear example of why transparent information is necessary and clear communications make a difference. Patients need to understand their options, the risks, the tradeoffs, and the implications.

Communications As Trend Mgmt Tool for Pharmacy: Cliff Notes

Here are a few points from my recent webinar on this topic. If you are interested and a potential client, I would be happy to share the detailed content with you offline.

[Since all our competitors tried to sign up to listen in, I won’t give away everything here.]

  1. Talked about all the value sitting on the table that could be captured (>$30B per year).
  2. Talked about how communications can both be the trend management tool and enable utilization of other trend management tools (e.g., utilization management).
  3. Talked about things like loss aversion versus cost savings, the placebo / price correlation, and the transition from the Ford framework to the Starbucks framework in the healthcare industry.
  4. Talked about how people are different and the need for a systemic approach to dynamically optimizing program success using a scalable model.
  5. Talked about some frameworks for retail-to-mail and brand-to-generic along with the importance of asking the right questions in program design and measuring ROI.
  6. Finally, we talked about some results and the different levers to play with to impact results.

Convergence: The White Space Between Ford and Starbucks

I recently read a great book called Microtrends. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it for its interesting analysis of trends and the way it makes you think. For example, it talks about how people are drinking more water and more caffeine drinks. It talks about how people have much shorter attention spans yet there is a rise in knitting and books are getting longer. It talks about obesity and young vegans. It plays on the power to see small trends (i.e., 1% of the population) and how they can impact the overall framework. (You can read my detailed notes here.)

One of the frameworks that the authors use is to compare the world as moving from a Ford economy (one choice) to a Starbucks economy (personalization). As healthcare typically lags other industries, I think we this analogy works to show where healthcare was and where we are going over time. Historically (at least in the modern era), we had one choice for healthcare coverage which was offered through our employer. Over time, that has changed to where most people have more than one option for healthcare coverage from their employer. And now, more and more people are losing coverage and the fastest growing segment is individual health insurance.

We have evolved to personal healthcare, but we aren’t yet to personalized healthcare which I think will be largely driven by genomics and some radical change to our healthcare system. Unfortunately, I think we are stuck somewhere in between right now where to personalize your healthcare you need to go to a series of providers or tools which aren’t integrated. There are a few scenarios out there where there is some integration of medical, pharmacy, lab, and other data (Kaiser jumps to mind). But, even in an integrated environment, they haven’t yet fully digitized the offering and created a seamless patient experience (to the best of my knowledge).

As George Halvorson says in his latest book, Health Care Reform Now!, “We have an expensive plethora of uncoordinated, unlinked, economically segregated, operationally limited Microsystems, each performing in ways that too often create suboptimal performance both for the overall health care infrastructure and for individual patients.”

In a likely scenario, you have the following for a sick patient who is actively managing their health:

  • A primary care physician and their staff to interact with
  • A specialist and their staff to interact with
  • A pharmacist (or likely multiple pharmacists)
  • A specialty pharmacy and their nurse
  • A managed care company (and possibly Medicare) which offers a member portal and tools
  • A PBM which offers a member portal and tools
  • A disease management company and their health coach
  • Health portals or information sites (e.g., WebMD, RevolutionHealth)
  • A gym and potentially a trainer
  • A series of vitamins and OTCs that no one has visibility to (other than maybe their grocery frequent buyer card program)
  • One or more disease specific communities that they participate in (i.e., some of the Health 2.0 companies)
  • Blogs and news feeds they subscribe to for information on their disease

The reality is that they have to go out and build a series of interactions to create this semi-personalized offering with no hope of the data being integrated, getting consistent messages, or any true learnings being generated. Each party has a 1:1 relationship with them (best case) and knows a piece of the puzzle. Without an integrated infrastructure, aligned incentives, and a mechanism to engage each patient according to their preferences, we have a very difficult challenge (as an industry) and each patient bears the brunt of this.

Until we can create physical or virtual convergence (i.e., integration of data and tools into one framework), we won’t be able to move from buying coffee at one store and skim milk at another store and our muffin at another store to a Starbucks world where we have one interface to select and personalize our healthcare experience. I wish I had the answer. Unfortunately, as more and more people are talking about, it seems like we have to make a radical change to be successful. Evolution from the status quo will likely not work. Much like GE had a program in the dotcom days called DestroyYourBusiness.com where they encouraged their leadership to figure out how to develop a new model, that is what healthcare needs with the support to initiate the skunkworks organization which might eventually become the norm.

Fast Friday: First Edition

The good and bad of loving information is that you get a lot of it and hate to throw it away until you skim it and take some notes. But, I am getting backed up so I think I am going to start a Friday edition that will be less thorough and more a data dump of things that I have set aside. I welcome feedback on whether this is interesting, helpful, or just dumping.

  • ChangeNow4Health – I stumbled upon this website which interesting has a Humana copyright at the bottom. [Simplify, Prevent, Educate]

How do we go about fixing the nation’s health care system? Where do we start? ChangeNow4Health believes we begin with small first steps. We’re looking for changes we can confidently make in the short term, using existing resources in creative ways … changes that will result in genuine improvement.

    Facebook Application To Drive Blood Donations

    I must admit I am pretty conservative so it was with some reluctance that I finally joined Facebook.  After the Health 2.0 conference formed a group out there, I decided to join earlier this week.  First, my brother reached out to me.  Then, a roommate of mine from college who I hadn’t talked to in almost 20 years contacted me.

    Then, I became mildly interested.  So, I spent a few hours early this morning playing around.  But, I was most interested to find a post on Vijay’s Consumer Focused Healthcare blog about a non-profit using Facebook as a way to drive blood donations.  Will it work?  I don’t know, but it is a worthy cause and an interesting use of social technology.

    When a patient is in need of blood that isn’t available, it becomes a life and death situation. Historically the Red Cross will make efforts to alert the public during a shortage. But there may be a better way – leverage the social networks to get the word out. If shortages of a certain type of blood occur in a certain zip code, having a database of willing donors in that zip code to contact may be the most efficient way to solve the problem quickly.

    That’s where Takes All Types (TAT), a non-profit organization, comes in. Users install their just-released Facebook application, tell it their location and blood type, and say how often they are willing to be contacted to donate blood (maximum is every 57 days). If a shortage occurs, they’ll contact you via the methods that you authorize (Facebook, email, text message, etc.)

    Health Transformation 2.0: Follow-up

    The other day, I provided a few comments on this book (manifesto) that I picked up, and I reached out to the author. He got back to me last night and was kind enough to provide the PDF of the publication.

    In his words:

    “These are simply my thoughts and thoughts inspired by a community of friends. It’s written as a kind of manifesto with the hope to inspire more good minds to tackle a very major challenge facing our society.”

    I would encourage you to reach out to him if interested. (E-mail Scott Danielson – author)

    Here is the book for you to view. I hope you will enjoy the hard work his community put in both in terms of content and graphic design.

    Don’t forget to sign up for e-mail updates or put the blog in your reader. Thanks.

    Health Transformation 2.0

    I grabbed this little book off the table at Health 2.0.  I am finally getting around to flipping through it (rather than sleeping).

    I can’t figure out if it’s associated with a company.  If yes, they have done a great job of disguising it.  [For what purpose, I don’t know.]  It is very well laid out with great graphics and is called:

    Health Transformation 2.0
    Can A Better Healthcare Operating System Make Us Healthier?

    The author’s name (Scott Danielson) and e-mail are in the cover so I have shot him a note to see if I could add it here as a flash or some other visual.  Here are a few of the comments from the book:

    •  Healthcare 2.0 uses emerging technologies to transform an archaic, disease-treating system into a progressive health-enhancing one.
    • In the past 4 years, healthcare costs have doubled.  Are we twice as healthy?
    • Today, we have the ability to create a set of tools, a healthcare operating system that will help people find and manage information, research and control costs, and get and/or stay healthy.
    • Connected.  Helpful.  Secure.  Organized.  Informed.
    • Personal + Health + Power = Personalized Health Empowerment

    Does 1% Matter?

    The whole theory behind Microtrends is the 1% of the population matters and can form a force that can drive change.  Look at all the talk about marathoning in this country when only 0.17% of people have run one.

    From a healthcare perspective, I found it interesting that genetically “any two people are more than 99% the same at the genetic level” yet obviously genomics matters.  [We want to know what genes do.]

    If small gene differences can make the difference in how our body uses medicine, it could be a breakthrough, but (as the WSJ article suggests) will it bee too much for medicine to really master and take advantage of.  Great question.

    All of this made me think back to healthcare communications…does 1% matter?  Yes.  If you could develop communications that were specific to each segment, even if they varied by 1%, wouldn’t that improve results.  And, if you’re focusing on the measures that matter to drive your results, won’t that have an impact.

    Medication Adherence Devices

    I think we all can predict that the medical device industry should explode over the next few years.  USA Today had a recent article on a “smart pillbox” which caught my eye.

    According to Forrester Research, the market for home health monitoring technologies is expected to reach $5 billion by 2010 — and $34 billion by 2015.

    As the article stresses, this technology will be important with over 30M Americans taking more than 3 medications per day and over 100,000 dying from adverse drug reactions.

    Usually, I hear about things like glowing bottle caps to remind people to take their medications.  Although the Med E-Monitor is a little bulkier, I like the fact that it does more than simply remind you.  It also looks for adverse drug events and provides information.  Ideally, one of these devices will simply generate refills through a simple click.  [I have not read the studies but they claim to have raised adherence from 35-40% to 90% which would be significant.]

    med-e-monitor.gif

    My big questions from looking at the website are:

    • It holds up to 5 medications.  What about those patients on 30 medications?  Can it be modularized?
    • Even if it can’t have modules, can it store the data and serve as the central reminder for medications not in there?
    • Who programs it with every medication change?  The MD.  The patient.  The company.
    • Can it generate a refill request to the pharmacy?  Can it generate a request for a renewal (i.e., a new prescription for my existing medication)?
    • Will people pay $60 a month?  Is the buyer, the children that live out of town and want their parent to be safe or the actual patient themselves?

    Some of the other sites out there talking about solutions include:

    Don’t You Know Me

    A Harris Interactive poll published in AdAge a few weeks ago, talked about the value people put on companies knowing who they are. We have all had that experience where you put in your phone into the IVR then get asked to verify it when the person picks up the phone and asked again for the number and your name when you get transferred. How annoying!

    I always joked with our VP of Call Centers that Dominos was more likely to know who I was based on my caller ID then we were. There are so many technologies out there that there isn’t a good reason for companies not to take advantage of them. There is technology that based on your voice can tell if you are depressed. There is technology that based on your voice can tell if you’re angry. There are plenty of screen pops and technology that can pull in the caller ID.

    Even the companies that do that don’t often have a consolidated view of the customer. They don’t know that you called yesterday; visited the website earlier; got a call last week; had a mailing sent to you last month; filed a complaint about the same issue you are calling about; etc.

    So, how do consumers feel…

    • 95% believe it is at least somewhat important that companies know “who I am, my buying history, past problems or complaints, preferences, and billing record”
      • 37% said personal history is important
      • 27% said it’s very important
    • 62% said they would not hesitate to cancel or switch services if they had a negative experience

    Of course, healthcare makes this hard. With employer sponsored healthcare, I can only switch annually or with certain events. With individual healthcare, I might not switch for fear of having some condition excluded. Plus, companies worry about trading privacy for personalization.

    But, the reality is that this is going to continue to be an issue. Technology is putting more and more information out there and raising the bar.

    On the flipside, doing something wrong quickly gets put on people’s Facebook pages, their blogs, or other tools where the experience ripples real-time and never disappears.

    Blinded By The Voice

    I heard an interesting arguement the other day.  Someone was saying that the only thing that matters in the automated voice space is the voice.  They suggested listening to a call and thinking about what the patient heard.

    This reminds me of advice from business school that the paper on which your resume was written makes all the difference.  Or that the font or color on your marketing materials is the key thing to get right.  It certainly matters.  But different people want different voices.  Ultimately, it’s about how you deliver that 1:1 personalized communication to the patient based on their preferences, their historical interaction pattern, and a blend of their claims and demographic data.

    The other thing that surprised me was the implication that voice was more important than reporting and technology.  If I have a great patient interaction, but I can’t mine the data and I can’t easily modify the program to be better than I am blind to the success.

    One of the things that I experienced when I ran campaigns is the need for in-flight modifications.  I may predict that I get a 20% response rate to a particular copay waiver program, but if I only get 5%, I rather stop it day one and tweak a few things rather than wait 30 days and miss a lot of opportunity.  On the other hand, if I get a 40% response rate, I may want to dial down the volume to manage my transfer rate to my call center and not mess up my ASA (Average Seconds to Answer) which probably has some SLAs tied to it.

    Think about your communications solution from every angle…the interaction, set-up, ease of change, flexibility, reporting.

    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.

    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.